5 Reasons Why Girls With Tattoos And Piercings Are Broken

No girl has ever improved her looks with a gaudy mural injected under her skin or a piece of metal dangling from her nostrils. There’s no man on Earth who has ever thought about his girlfriend or wife, “Man, you know what would make her even sexier? A butterfly emblazoned just over her ass.” Yet despite this objective reality, thousands of girls continue to mutilate themselves at an astounding rate, to the point where more girls now have tattoos than men. Here are the reasons why you should shun these girls like they’re lepers.

zoe-quinn

1. They’re sluts

What kind of girl would be comfortable lying down half-naked in public for two hours while some fat dude with a dirty beard jams a sharp needle into her skin? Answer: the kind of girl who takes sharp objects in her vagina as a hobby. Girls with tattoos and/or piercings (aside from earrings) are slags who fall in and out of guys’ beds at a moment’s notice. If you’re unfortunate enough to commit to a girl with ink on her body or metal in her face, she’ll cheat on you at the drop of a hat. Tattoos and piercings are the mark of the whore, which is why in more traditional countries like the Philippines, only whores have them.

One of the first girls I ever banged was a self-styled “piercing addict.” She had multiple ear piercings, a stud in her nose, a tongue piercing, and both nipples pierced. While we were dating, she was also bragging about how she was going to get her clit pierced (oh lucky me). In the time that I knew her, she went on to bang two of my friends, as well as at least four other guys I knew, within a span of two months. She would later get busted by campus police for turning tricks on the side.

bible-tattoo

2. They have no foresight

Even in our degenerate society, people with visible tattoos and piercings have difficulty getting jobs. Not even minimum wage employers will hire them, because no one wants their Big Mac or Double Crappuccino served by an Apocalypto extra. Girls who get inked or pierced are showing that they can’t be trusted to plan for the future. They don’t care that their stupid choices will consign them to living off their parents for the rest of their lives: all they care about is their individuality.

Not only that, but girls with tattoos specifically have no idea that their cool designs will be destroyed by aging. Gravity and Father Time work their magic on us all, and your taut flesh will eventually sag and wrinkle like a raisin in the sun. A chick who can’t comprehend that the awesome Narnia scene tattooed on her back will look like Technicolor vomit when she’s 40 is too dumb to be the mother of your children.

pierced-tongue-woman

3. They’re selfish

The reasons girls get tattoos and piercings—“I’m doing it for ME!”—are indicative of narcissism and mild psychopathy. Girls get tattoos for the same reasons they cut their hair short: a desperate attempt to assert how unique and special they are. A girl who willfully disfigures herself like this will never attempt to please you or do anything nice for you. She won’t care for you when you’re sick, will refuse to sleep with you for completely arbitrary reasons, and will generally be a moody, unlikable cunt.

lena-dunham

4. They’re boring

Girls’ logic when it comes to tattoos is best described by paraphrasing Lena Dunham’s character in Girls: “I have a tattoo, and that just makes me naturally interesting.” Nothing could be further from the truth. My experience shows me that girls with ink and/or metal are the most boring, conformist chicks you’ll ever come across. To be fair, most girls are dull as dirt, but tattooed and pierced girls are aggressively dull, assaulting you with the most hackneyed left-wing tripe you’ll ever hear.

My “piercing addict” girlfriend, for example, identified as a Marxist (I shit you not) based on one class she took on Latin America and was constantly talking my ear off about some “injustice” or another. The joke was that before she took that class, she was so tuned out to current events that she wasn’t even registered to vote. I derived incredible pleasure from shoving my cock in her mouth to shut her up.

hipster-tattoo

5. They’re mentally ill

This is the clincher. Any girl who thinks that a getting a ring in her nose or a Bible verse on her back is a good idea is going to be off her rocker. In my entire life, I have never met an inked or pierced girl who wasn’t sick in the head, whether they had depression, “anxiety” or a full-blown personality disorder. While girls with facial piercings and tattoos on the arms or legs can at least feign normality, chicks with piercings or tattoos on or near their erogenous zones (breasts, labia, ass) are the kinds of broads who will cut you with a knife.

Going back to the “piercing addict,” she was a complete masochist who would burst into tears every time after we had sex, crying about how I wasn’t banging her hard enough. Another girlfriend of mine who had a tramp stamp was a full-on borderline, starting fights for no reason to try provoke me into hitting and slapping her. She also casually referred to black people with the n-word in mixed company despite being a racial minority herself. Both girls were absolute maniacs in the sack—we’re talking nails-digging-into-my-back kind of sex—but outside of the bedroom, they were one bad day from a complete breakdown.

The only good thing about tattoos and piercings is that they signal which girls you can bang with minimal effort. If you’re looking to make a girl wince during anal on the first date, pick the one with a tramp stamp or a tongue piercing. But if you’re looking for a girl you can wife up, go for the ones who haven’t mangled their bodies beyond repair.

Read More: 5 Reasons Why You Should Never Date A Girl With Dyed Hair

528 thoughts on “5 Reasons Why Girls With Tattoos And Piercings Are Broken”

  1. I don’t like tattoos and most piercings, but at least with piercings they are reversible. However, sweeping generalizations like the author makes do not always hold true. A lot things teens do are as much a fad as anything else. They are seeking to be different and find their identity. Now, for older chicks, there is more likely to be something off.

    1. You are fixated on the exceptions. If you go through life like that you will never make good decisions.

      1. And you have jumped to the conclusion that I accept the authors assertions as the rule. Personally, tats turn me off to the extreme, and I’m not big fan of nose rings (btw quite common in Hindu cultures). Also, it can be argued that all teens go through a period where they are little ‘off.’ They are seeking their identity and to be different. It’s why I made that distinction. Exceptions and nuance make life interesting 🙂

      2. Hi Freeborn!
        Hope you and all of your loved ones are doing great.
        Your posting is very aptly and succinctly put. If only more people listened to your very wise words…

  2. i really cannot force myself to give a shit one way or another. we all berath the same air, however, it is my most humble but FIRM belief that crazy is a communicable disease. so better safe than sorry.

    1. You should avoid tatties for the same reason you don’t visit leper colonies or participate in the Haj.

  3. The most obvious summary: all women are the same, and nothing they ever do can prove otherwise.

    1. You can have the tatties for yourself. Wear two rubbers and keep you hand on your wallet.
      ***********************
      Never, never, never let them be unsupervised in your home. The best policy is to show them the door before you actually go to sleep.

      1. Ok, I just read through this thread. You’re cracking me up, but at the same time you are dead accurate. It used to be that you had to sort through a lot of personality and behavioral stuff to figure out if a woman was loony-tunes. But when tats and piercings became popular, they made it much easier to figure out who had distorted personalities and warped self-images. Thanks!
        And yes, I do think you can sort through the level of personality disorders by the number of square inches of tats, or ounces/pounds of metal/plastic stuck in newly created apertures in skin. A tiny little rose discreetly tucked away under a blouse might mean nothing more than a single night of drunken silliness upon graduation from high school/college/beauty school/massage therapy. But a dissertation covering many scores of square inches means RUN AWAY!

  4. Lets get this party started again! The tattoo thread is now officially re-opened!

      1. What you can’t tell (maybe) from the above is that “Kelley” is giving one guy a blow job while the guy who took the photo is doing her from behind (not obvious if it’s anal or vaginal). I’ve seen the “full” photo elsewhere.

    1. Good gracious! You really know how to kick off a party.
      (I first saw this now.)
      Medication-wise, I am still in limbo. I will keep you posted. It has been 8 1/2 months. (Sigh). It makes me want to strangle every ×÷=:#$! Lib who voted for Obamacare!

    2. Dude. What happened to the 50K+ comments? 🙁 🙁 🙁 Oh how I miss them so. 😀

      1. I’ll find a way for you to get back to them later tonight. Need to paint now.
        I posted the psychological goods on dERp there and the tattie comment section was almost immediately shut down and hidden. I contacted Roosh and he had no idea it had happened. He re-opened the section, but the old comments are no longer in the thread.
        You can find old posts and get back to them. I’ll do that for you in a bit. I think Geezus is still posting in the old thread. The trick is to click on “view in discussion”. If you click on the story it will take you to the newer, smaller, and more boring comments section.

      2. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8fa48c6e43b7a355bea4014762211a25853d349dc071249c62514b68074d685b.jpg BTW, Good to see you.
        The notorious troll DGCJ has come to the realization that he has said too much about his personal life. It seems like every day someone new figures out his real identity.
        I guess his defense of pederast child molesters was finally too much for most people to pass without taking action.
        He has changed his name and avatar twice in the last week. I think we are seeing the death throws of that troll identity.

      3. dERp must have decided her comments here were unladylike. She deleted around 2000 of them.
        I don’t understand why she left the ones she did. They are just as vile as what she deleted.

  5. The implication appears to be that crazy/boring/sluts can be identified by tattoos and piercings. The logic here is flawed. You can start to assume all crazy/boring/slut women get tattoos and piercings, but it’s not the same to then say all tattooed and pierced women are crazy/boring/sluts.
    So let’s assume all crazy women get tattoos. Here’s how it fails:
    If Jan is crazy, then Jan will get tattoos.
    Jan got tattoos.
    Therefore, Jan is crazy.
    This only works if we’re affirming the antecedent, but here we’re affirming the consequent. It would only work if we had said:
    If Jan is crazy, then Jan will get tattoos.
    Jan is crazy.
    Therefore, Jan got tattoos.
    But what we’re actually saying is the same as:
    If the animal is a dog, the animal will have fur.
    The animal has fur.
    Therefore, the animal is a dog.
    Or
    If John is a barista, then John will make you coffee.
    John made you coffee.
    Therefore, John is a barista.
    Or
    If the mug is empty, then there is no coffee in it.
    There is no coffee in it.
    Therefore the mug is empty.
    We know that just because it has fur doesn’t mean it’s a dog, just because someone makes you coffee doesn’t mean they’re a barista, and just because the mug doesn’t have coffee in it doesn’t mean there’s not OJ or water or soda in it. Similarly, just because women get tattoos doesn’t mean they’re crazy, even if we’re to assume that all crazies get tat’d.
    Correct me if I’m failing to understand your claim.

    1. The correlation is strong enough to justify saving time. Don’t waste more than one night of your life on a tattie.

      1. Have you considered that the correlation is only strong because of your mysterious attraction to crazy women?
        Just something to consider. The tattooed women in my family/friend circle are all fairly normal. Wonderful people.

      2. Here’s another one: You could say that all crazy people go to the grocery store, but that doesn’t mean that all people who visit the grocery store are crazy. Should we then avoid the grocery store, lest we run into crazy people?

        1. Right, but that’s irrelevant. The point is that the hypothetical scenario mirrors your logic.

        2. Did you figure out who DGJC is? He made what seemed to me an odd statement re that a while ago.

        3. Well, my friend, if this is an appropriate venue, tell us. What was that odd statement?

        4. “I thought you said Bernie “wasn’t going anywhere.” Oops! Did you notice how many states he’s won?
          By the way, for the second time one of your geezer gang claims to “know” who I am. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!”

        5. He has been using a couple of socks.
          ********************
          Knowing he’s using socks is as close as I’ve ever come to knowing who he is.
          ********************
          I do know that his publishing claims do not line up with the bibliography of his alleged publisher.

        6. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
          ****************
          If you have been harrassed by DGCJ, AKA “were-homo” (hat tip Mars), the following .gif may offer you a few minutes respite from this nuisance.
          **************** https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/af7cdcc82e894f06f2abb1e271599b4ac4953d3235b84e9a5124aa04b7f2532e.gif
          *****************
          Expect it to work something like this:
          *****************
          He won’t bother anyone for a five minute interval immediately after he is exposed.
          **************** https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/97cbbe064b5a4d090ac01d1de62c6c08f94eab2eb2aebf7c3ac2afaa6c2930d9.jpg
          *****************
          About an hour later he’ll go off line for around 20 minutes. About an hour after that he’ll be quite for another 30 minutes.
          **********************
          Unfortunately, it only works three times per day.

        7. You saved my life, Shep! Got a splitting headache, now, but it’s a small price!

        8. It is not irrelevant. Have you ever passed logic? If you went about your daily life using that type of thinking every con man in the world would be lined up on your porch before you left the house.

        9. It is irrelevant. The correlation is only relevant when considering the validity of the premises. We’re looking at the structure and whether it logically follows. Hence, hypothetical. Appreciate the vigilance but you’re a little unqualified.

        10. Neither were toy stores once upon a time ago. I will never forget, when I was a child, seeing adults almost killing each other over Cabbage Patch Dolls!

        11. I had a friend who managed a Toys ‘R’ Us, whom I knew from my poorer days. He asked me if I would work overnight during Christmas for a couple of weeks. It corresponded to when those dolls came out. There was a line of people outside of the door every morning when we went home.

        12. It was so ridiculous. Even as a child I remember thinking how ludicrous the whole craze was. It came to a point where you had to get the doll you were handed, you were not even allowed to choose your own doll.
          A friend of my parents had worked in a top position in J & R Music World. I will never forget the description of the process that he had relayed to us when we were invited to their house for dinner one night.
          The dolls came in armored and protected trucks as if the drivers were hauling millions of dollars in cash, which at times, they certainly were, (depending on the year and current value of the dolls of that calendar year.)
          Not surprising if these “adults” and their children are Obama fans, and Libs in general.

    2. AI posts have all been flame-baiting posts that rely on the tenuous concept that if “not all” of indicator A means behavior B is the cause, then we should pretend that no reliable model can exist.
      Of course that is specious since all sorts of effective screening relies on the effectively high probability of a relationship, and not the absolute and guaranteed association. For instance, there exists some anti-personnel mines that are duds (won’t-blow-off-your-leg) but the prudent course of action is go about treating them as 100% operational. Just like the probability cost of having to hop around there after (providing that you survive), the probability cost of a mentally-imbalanced person sleeping next to you is high. That is what AI disingenuously overlooks.
      Like anything, getting a good candidate for a relationship is a numbers game. If one foolishly thinks that there must be that 1-in-1000 (or less) chance that a person had a better reason than “I must wear my hurt on my skin because my hurt is special”, then feel free to run through a mine field. You know, not “ALL” land mines will detonate.
      Since all your short history of posts is in support of this fallacious excuse, it is likely that “AI” is just a butt-hurt troll that thinks they are a special snowflake.

        1. There is evidence that most of the trolling we see on the DISQUS channels is from a small group of individuals. Clearly, dERp is a ring-leader (be it self-appointed or by sheer volume of participation).
          These are very anti-social and self-serving individuals. They are anarchists, that, given the freedom to post, create as much havoc as they can to compensate for severe inferiority complexes.
          To a person they are very pathetic individuals with no redeeming qualities.

        2. Didn’t even need to “drop” in. The thread was in good hands. It was way too apparent that dERp is operating a couple of sock-puppets too. With more people aware of her trolling, it won’t be long before this gang of flame-artists get ejected.

        3. LOL. “Brown” period. I took in an exhibit of Picasso’s Blue period a couple of years ago (National Portrait Gallery, if I recall). He sure got moody for some time. Glad he got out of the funk though.
          There once were a few hardcore neo-feminists that though they could deal with Sheeeeet. Lately this widdle gang of dERp is too pathetic for a full on “coil” of truth.

        4. I used you as the good example with several of our friends. You might check in with them.

        5. Be careful about mentioning “Brown Period” in certain company.
          I shudder as I imagine which pictures she will post.

        6. Glad to be of service. Trolls like dERp are the small percentage of jackasses that ruin the Internet experience for the rest of us.

        7. I love ***fortune cookies***. I could probably eat myself into a stupor if they kept them coming. Let the Year of the Monkey be the year where we undERpify the Internet. =^D

        8. I printed that out and hung it over my desk at work. It still makes me laugh out loud when I read it. Priceless!!

      1. Aside from the logic which only assumes the correlation, the reliability of the claim overall is being neglected. Certain necessary components have been repeatedly ignored in this thread and article. All have failed to provide reliable evidence and reason to support that the correlation is in fact strong.
        There are approximately 7 billion people in the the world, around 45 million Americans have tattoos, and even if you were to third it to account for the women alone, that would still leave us with 15 million. In order to get a reliable consensus all would need a sample size varying anywhere from 600 to 500,000 depending on the margin of error. This is assuming that less women get tattoos than men. If we were to consider a higher number, the necessary sample size would only increase. If any of you can provide a scientific study of the percentage of tattooed women and their recorded mental stability then I might take the “correlation” a little more seriously. Unfortunately we’re forced to take someone’s subjective, emotionally charged word for it.
        Regarding the mines and duds, you’re conflating general mental instability with tattooed women, which has yet to be properly measured (to my knowledge). The “effectively high probability” is currently non-existent. Disingenuous is being applied to the wrong person here.
        1. The logic fails, assuming that the correlation is true.
        2. There is no reliable evidence to support the correlation.
        3. The failure to provide such evidence makes the claim absolutely meaningless, at least while it’s being withheld.
        The lack of depth here doesn’t stop at logic and tangibility, but even branches its way over to philosophy. The reaction to brokenness and pain is assumed to be guaranteed, indecent behavior and insanity. The other side which has yet to be considered is the possible strength, character, and wisdom acquired through pain and suffering. The reality appears to be that sometimes brokenness leads to negative results, other times positive improvements.
        Not my intention to flame bait, but to inspire a deeper analysis of the thoughts being presented here. Butt hurt snowflakes are more concerned with defending their biases than considering the reliability of them. I suggest you detach from whatever butt hurt syndrome you’re currently suffering from and consider whether the idea works.

        1. AI Item 1:

          Aside from the logic which only assumes the correlation, the reliability of the claim overall is being neglected. Certain necessary components have been repeatedly ignored in this thread and article. All have failed to provide reliable evidence and reason to support that the correlation is in fact strong.

          As the author is not creating any illusion that his article is a peer-reviewed work, it stands to reason that the piece is not scrutinized to that degree. It is disingenuous to repeatedly suggest that such rigor is directly necessary.
          While most of the 53 thousand posts from the original thread have been archived (one can still find them if they were actually interested), anyone actually interested in the truth would have found that science supports the direction of this commentary. There is a strong correlation (and not merely an “assumed” one) that the decision to adorn one’s body with tattoos amongst young women in modern Western society is tied to errant behaviour. As such, it is the onus of the person who presents an antithesis to provide support for such antithesis, or, be considered to be nothing but a denier. That opposing position would be yours.
          AI Item 2:

          There are approximately 7 billion people in the the world, around 45 million Americans have tattoos, and even if you were to third it to account for the women alone, that would still leave us with 15 million. In order to get a reliable consensus all would need a sample size varying anywhere from 600 to 500,000 depending on the margin of error. This is assuming that less women get tattoos than men. If we were to consider a higher number, the necessary sample size would only increase. If any of you can provide a scientific study of the percentage of tattooed women and their recorded mental stability then I might take the “correlation” a little more seriously. Unfortunately we’re forced to take someone’s subjective, emotionally charged word for it.

          Nice try.
          While there are at least 7 billion persons in the world, the article is specifically focused on young women in raised in the First World. That “7 billion” is only meant to speciously make the population of young women in the USA seem less “insignificant”. This article is a guideline for young men in the First world (and mainly the USA) looking for a long-term partner. Please try and explain how the “7 billion” individuals in the world (including 80-year-old men in Siberia) pertain to that segment. Go on. Tell us. Hint: You are very dishonest (and that is typical of smug little trolls that think they can fool people with this kind of subterfuge).
          As far as the significance, the scientific studies done on the specific target group are peer reviewed which means that statistical significance is critical. Again, it is not those who agree with the studies that have to provide support. It is you, the denier, that has to provide foundation for your position.
          Since you quickly resort to dishonest arguments like you just did, few will take you seriously. There is science that supports what this article says. Just because you wish to be ignorant of them does not make the correlation noted here untrue. If anyone is being emotionally charged, it would be you.
          AI Item 3:

          Regarding the mines and duds, you’re conflating general mental instability with tattooed women, which has yet to be properly measured (to my knowledge). The “effectively high probability” is currently non-existent. Disingenuous is being applied to the wrong person here.

          No. The correlation is that mental instability is what is behind the need to imprint one’s emotional journey on their body in a permanent way. It is a form of self-aggrandizement and narcissism. That doesn’t mean all mentally unstable women will exhibit this behaviour, but it does mean that increasing amounts of inked skin means increasing levels of personality issues. It is like trolling. The more one trolls even after having their specious arguments refuted, the more likely one has some psychiatric problems.
          Right. Not “properly measured… (wait for it)… to “your” knowledge. You are just pretending the science behind what this guy writes about doesn’t exist. The couple of trolls in the original thread (and odds are high you are just a sock puppet of one of them) have been pointed to these studies countless times. Even if you specifically have not, a simple search on the Internet yields many peer-reviewed studies that show a definite correlation between tattoos and risky behaviour among young women in Western society.
          Disingenuousness is absolute correctly applied to you.
          AI Item 4:

          1. The logic fails, assuming that the correlation is true.

          The correlation is supported by many scientific studies. You are merely being conveniently ignorant of them. As far as the logic, you are misrepresenting a trend as a panacea, and, pretending that unless a model is 100% accurate, it cannot be effectively used. Most altimeters are generally accurate, but do not account for things like trees… it’s best not to use them when close to the local datum. Of course, according to your “argument” they shouldn’t be used at all.
          AI Item 5:

          2. There is no reliable evidence to support the correlation.

          There is a lot of reliable scientific study. Because you pretend they do not exist does not make non-existent.
          AI Item 6:

          3. The failure to provide such evidence makes the claim absolutely meaningless, at least while it’s being withheld.

          Nice try.
          As it is your assertion that opposes the scientific consensus, it is your onus to provide evidence that supports your antithesis. You trolls always think that people owe you proof to “your” satisfaction, when it is usually you lot that asserts the wild claim. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
          AI Item 7:

          The lack of depth here doesn’t stop at logic and tangibility, but even branches its way over to philosophy. The reaction to brokenness and pain is assumed to be guaranteed, indecent behavior and insanity. The other side which has yet to be considered is the possible strength, character, and wisdom acquired through pain and suffering. The reality appears to be that sometimes brokenness leads to negative results, other times positive improvements.

          Your feeble attempts to suggest illogical foundation and tangibility have already been refuted. As far as a lack of depth, just how much deeper does it have to go? Increasing tattoos means high odds of increasing personality issues. There’s no need to see any further than that. It’s like the old “land mine” analogy. You step on it and bad things are likely to follow in a microsecond. No one needs to look for any deeper meaning (you may be looking for a medic though).
          Possible strength, character and wisdom increase? Seriously? If a person has to aggressively tell the world about their woes on a permanent basis, that is not a display of strength, character or wisdom. If there was “positive” improvement, it precludes having to stamp a psychological passage for all to see. What part of “constantly reminding oneself (and others) of a past” do you think is “growth”. Someone who stamps, “I had a bad time when I was 12” on their arm so that everyone can see that 15 years later is not about depth of character.
          AI Item 8:

          Not my intention to flame bait, but to inspire a deeper analysis of the thoughts being presented here. Butt hurt snowflakes are more concerned with defending their biases than considering the reliability of them.

          That you choose the dishonest method of trying to deflect from the applicability of a model by indicating that it is not 100% foolproof (hey, maybe someone was drugged and tattooed without their knowledge, right?) it is doubtful that your intentions are so innocent.
          While you attempt to dismiss the correlation as being an “association fallacy”, what you speciously camouflage is that tattoos are nearly all (“nearly all” as to cover off involuntary tattoos or time-travelling Celtic warriors, etc.) voluntary products. As such they are window into the mind of the carrier (unlike fur on a dog for example, which is involuntary). The number of defenders on the old thread who say that they inked-up to remind them of a past trauma tells us that it is a coping mechanism. That aligns with what the scientific studies talk about. There have been little in the way of “other” reasons for getting out the needle to poke ink under one’s skin (as in really “none at all”). Deeper analysis? You are just trying to create doubt where there really isn’t any.
          The reliability of the studies and how most trolls here try to insult and shame people into complying with the antithesis tells us that it is the trolls that are butt-hurt snowflakes.
          AI Item 9:

          I suggest you detach from whatever butt hurt syndrome you’re currently suffering from and consider whether the idea works.

          It is suggested that you step back and see that parroting attacks general are nonsense because parroting relies on some element of truth in the reciprocal accusation. There is no parallel in the other direction. No one defending this article is exhibiting signs of “butt-hurt”. It is those who create sock-puppet after sock-puppet after sock-puppet specifically to put out the same hackneyed routines (like trying to say that “the model isn’t perfect so we have to throw it out”) that are clearly “butt-hurt”.
          Science has shown us that the idea works. Your trolling shows us that you have so much butt-hurt from this that you need to press on a campaign of misinformation in an attempt to create doubt where there really is none.
          Present some support for your antithesis, or be seen as a butt-hurt person reduced to harassing those you cannot legitimately debate.

        2. Wow Al, it looks like you were just getting started, and then you stopped.
          Whose sock are you, Al?

  6. Howdy Fellas!
    I just want to share this from the notorious troll DGCJ, and our old friend Jubal
    The long and the short of this is that DGCJ personally knows and is actively (very actively) defending the homosexual child molesting rapist of a 12 year old boy.
    Feel free to drop in on the boy an let him know what you think of his friends.

    1. I would be handing out extra solid barf bags; like the ones given on the airplanes. What a sickening specimen — even for a Lib!!!!!

        1. As always, you are “right on the money.”
          He positively nauseated me beyond description.
          I pray you and your entire family and all of your loved ones, are doing wonderfully well in every way.
          Most sincerely, and appreciatively always,
          Rebecca 😉

        2. You got trapped in my spam filter. I have no idea why. Some people are just repulsive and seem to revel in it. Rebecca, a nice biblical name. I had an aunt Rebecca who went by Reba. This is a great place to live, and I am more contented here than I have been in my whole adult life. Thank you for your kind wishes, Bless you.

        3. Just saw this. You too, John. May the Almighty also protect you and your loved ones always.
          Thank you so much! 😉

        4. About the only Yiddish I know would be Mazel Tov. Would that be an appropriate response back to you?

        5. Just saw this now. So sorry. What you see, in a matter of speaking is what you get. That describes my personality. In Judaism, it says “not to say one thing in the mouth and to be something else in the heart.”
          You can try me “on for size”, in a manner of speaking!

        6. Just saw this now. So sorry! Mazel Tov, literally means in the Holy Tongue, “Good luck!” It is used similar to “Congratulations!” It is not Yiddish.
          Shalom is from the Holy Tongue too. It means Hello, goodbye, and Peace! It depends on the context of the sentence what it means. You can never go wrong with wishing a Jewish Person “Shalom.”
          Again, so sorry I first saw this now. I guess better late than never would apply here too. (sigh!)

        7. Hi Rebecca! Please let me formally introduce myself. I am ER’s sister. Much of my time is spent worrying about her and apologizing for her bad behavior. It is an awful thing to have a family member like her, but she is family, so we still try to help her.
          Momma and several of her sisters are worried about her too.

        8. Please say hello to all your family for me and wish them a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. HA!

    2. Update: It seems that ‘Thought Catalog” is censoring my posts, and likely due to “Phineas” on the pro-lifer’s site whining. It makes sense though. Thought Catalog is not about real debate, it is really a liberal mouthpiece. With “Jim H” and his sock-puppets losing so badly, they had to step in. Talk about bias.

        1. In response to Phineas McClintock:
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liveactionnews/a_pro_lifer8217s_view_on_paid_family_leave/#comment-2693812212
          —–“Oh, and just where have you been admonished for using a figure of speech. Where? You really need to stop LYING.”
          Where did I specifically say I was admonished for using a figure of speech? See, your standards are ridiculously hypocritical.—–
          RoTFl. You really are that DISHONEST.
          I quoted your exact words, in context, as the foundation of that criticism. Here it is again:
          Phineas: ’…You will also need to prove your statement: “It is clear that the agenda is to attack anyone that “dares” to question his words.” Anyone? Good luck proving that. Or wait, is it okay for you to use such generalized phrasing, but not for me to do so??…’
          You basically stated that I effectively disallow you from using generalized [sic] phrasing. (You really meant hyperbolic and not so much “generalized”). You specifically point out “Anyone” to indicate that the statement is to be taken LITERALLY, and that if it is shown that even one individual is spared, then it isn’t really “anyone” and therefore the assertion is false. So you SPECIFICALLY implied (yes that counts for all you that would use innuendo) that there was some double standard. Ergo, that YOU were not allowed to use hyperbolic phrases, but I could. That is your LIE and that is not even a “nice try”, Phineas. That is about as DISHONEST as it gets. You are really sinking to a new low.
          —–I read into your statements what the reasonable person would, and every goddamn time if it’s not an exact quote, you say I’m lying about it.—–
          There is no doubt you actually understand what I post. In “fact” it is how you apply specious misrepresentations that betrays it. However, it is disingenuous (there’s that word again!) to suggest that you are deemed to be LYING because you are not quoting people exactly. No. You are LYING when you purposely misrepresent what was said, or pretend something wasn’t said when it was. This has been pointed out to you in detail many times. You are just trying to deflect now.
          —–You’re doin the same thing with my statements. Every logical fallacy you’re pulling off Google is actually what you’re doing. Shifting goal posts, straw man, blah blah, all you bro.—–
          Lol. You do realize that parroting doesn’t work in situations like this. This is the “no, YOU are” routine that little children use when they argue. Wouldn’t that be hilarious if it did? Every defense council would just have to say, “No, the accuser is the perpetrator” REGARDLESS of what the event being examined. Sorry, Phineas, but it doesn’t work that way.
          If you want to accuse your opposition of say, “Moving the goal posts” then present some evidence as to when and where. Let me guess, YOU excuse yourself from this effort. Everyone has to “take your word” on it. Lol. Seriously, Phineas, you are in way over your head here.
          —–I’ve said the same things from the beginning and it’s only gotten confusing due to your ridiculously long and 90% irrelevant personal attack posts. You got issues. Seriously, try the ganja.
          Nope. I quoted EXACTLY what your premise was, and proceeded to show it was not only UNSUPPORTED, but that it was in contradiction to the visible record here.
          It is you that has been trying to obfuscate that since you know you are wrong. I’ve got “issues”? Really, Phineas, that kind of Argumentum ad Hominem is exactly the kind of behavior that shows how immature most social justice warriors actually are. Just what “issues” do you believe someone has for taking the effort to expose your misinformation campaign?
          —–Noticed how you ignored the part about your abusive comments. Stayin away from the stuff that exposes your hypocrisy?—–
          Really? Just where have I made unprovoked “abusive” comments? If I recall, I’ve already mentioned that, while I avoid altercation where possible, I will not merely turn the other cheek, if someone takes the effort to attack me. In fact, I alluded to that in a response to you several days ago (comment #comment-2680996667). The exact words being:
          …Typically, social justice warriors always think it is their privilege and theirs alone to do the pushing and shoving. If anyone pushes back, they become ever so righteously indignant (“Hey, everybody! Someone is being hostile to me! Help! Help! Safe space! Safe space!”) So no. Jim’s targets are not on the same level as Jim just as fighting off a mugger doesn’t make you automatically an equal felon…
          Sorry, Phineas, but there’s not hypocrisy there. Not even the slightest bit. Don’t expect people to stand around and let bullies like Jim attack without reprisal. As far as “abusive”, you really should be admonishing Jim.
          —–Your sham justification for how your name calling is always mitigated, but Jim’s is not? Yeah, that’s not a good topic for you, it exposes you a bit, so yeah, I’d stay away from that one too.—–
          You speciously ignore how one can and will defend oneself against Argumentum ad Hominem from bullies like “Jim H” to pretend that I have no cause to use reasonable force? Right, only social justice warriors are allowed this (since “Jim” only becomes hostile because he is attacked first). Sorry, Phineas, but you seem to have a very biased view of events.
          Jim clearly initiates attacks and does so against anyone that calls out his poor arguments. I never “steered clear” of saying that equal and opposing force will be used in defense. You are making things up again. Of course, considering your consistent level of dishonesty, that was expected.
          —–Salvage my reputation? See, this is why I think you’re a funny guy. You don’t even know who I am. What reputation? I put no stock in my anonymous online reputation,—–
          Wow. That is weak even for you, Phineas.
          Whether someone knows your actual identity is irrelevant to the reputation of a given membership. You are aware of this based on how you attempt to clear “Jim H’’s character (and do so via very dishonest arguments). He himself is aware of how ones record of behavior is critical to the credibility of one’s present and future endorsements.
          While you can put little stock in this “anonymous” account, the record of this exchange basically strips away any credibility that it may have had as a good netizen dedicated to reasonable debate. Many have gone this route, and simply abandoned the account to start anew with another. There is no doubt that you would probably elect to do this. Regardless, the reputation of this current account of yours is effectively and irreparably tarnished.
          It was suspected that you were shilling for “Jim H” from the beginning. This has been proven. Thanks.
          —–I have a life. Good luck with yours.—–
          This is yet another of those attributes whereby if you have to tell people, then it is already cheapened. Then again, this type of passive aggressive Argumentum ad Hominem is par for the course with social justice advocates and their “shadow” warriors.
          Good luck in the wars to come.

        2. In response to Phineas McClintock:
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liveactionnews/a_pro_lifer8217s_view_on_paid_family_leave/#comment-2694824842
          —–Oops. Looks like your last comment was deleted before I could even reply to it. Did you delete it because you realized how ridiculous you’re making yourself look, or did a mod delete it for you,—–
          Your quick response to this “deletion” is yet another clue that you are probably the sock puppet of a moderator (Danny Awesomous). It is no surprise since the “moderator” made a post only to me, deleted it quickly, yet you seemed to have knowledge of it. The posts were so far down the thread, that it is unlikely you coincidentally saw it appear.
          Also, you seem to notice every deletion of my posts (which, clearly were not in any violation of rules). Phineas, you are not only a —LIAR—, but you are probably one of the most —DISHONEST— individuals around. Certainly, any moderator that calls himself “Awesome” has exactly the over-inflated ego like yourself.
          —–since you can’t seem to avoid making silly personal attacks with no provocation, at the same time as you judge Jim for his posts?—–
          Here you go —LYING— again. Not only do I not make “silly” personal attacks (and don’t try to conflate exposure of your —DISHONESTY— as a poster, imposter and now moderator-in-disguise as a personal attack), any post of that type has not been WITHOUT provocation. You are provoking with this very taunt.
          Essentially, you tried to bully as “Jim H”. When that failed, you resorted to using “Lachlan”. At the same time you employed “Phineas” to try and win the debate. When that failed, the “moderator” appeared to try and end the engagement. The fact that he said almost the same things that you said was quite suspicious. It became clear that you are actually the moderator on live action news org’ thread, “pro-lifers-view-paid-family-leave” when some of my posts started to be deleted, but the taunts towards me remained. Your “ability” to notice every time a post is deleted was a give-away.
          You really are a very —DISHONEST— person, a coward, a bully and do not deserve to be moderating anything. However, you don’t have jurisdiction here, loser. Come on, try and “delete” me here, coward.
          —–You call people morons, asshats, etc., and even your personal interaction with Jim appears to have started when you disparaged him behind his back. Care to prove otherwise?—–
          I have called people “morons” when they behave that way, moron.
          Asshat? When have I ever used that millennial pejorative? As far as disparaging Jim “behind his back”, how is posting a comment in PLAIN SIGHT of any and all viewers “behind” someone’s back? It is apparent that you are probably JIM too. You see to be “hurt” by anything said about him. You escalated the battle via sock puppets to try to “win”. You still lost, and you will continue to lose because self-righteous bullies like you DO NOT win. Care to prove otherwise? Without the protection of your moderator status, I doubt it, coward.
          —–Hypocrisy, irrelevance, and personal insults are your specialty. If that’s your intent, then this has been a great debate.—–
          No. They are your tools of misinformation. Stop projecting your —DISHONESTY— onto others. Your “intent” from the start was to have “Jim H” present biased views. If challenged, you would then use personal attack. When that got called out by me, you employed sock puppets to try and bully me into silence. When that didn’t work, your hubris led you to believe you could defeat me in debate. You couldn’t so you had to start cheating by using your moderator status. You’re a coward, a LIAR and really just a small-minded —DISHONEST— individual. Oh and you are definitely a sore loser.
          —–Otherwise, this has been a ridiculous example of one person lashing out at another’s perspective, labeling them a liar, employing absurd debate tactics to “prove” a point, desperately grabbing for every possible argument no matter how insane (you’re a sock puppet!), and generally demonstrating why conversations with closed-minded and arrogant people go nowhere.—–
          You were not just “labeled” a —LIAR—. It was proven by your actions. You are lying on the very post I am responding to here. Absurd debate tactics? When has taking apart a pseudo-argument by pointing out its flaws “absurd”. Apparently your ego is so bruised by losing that you need to rationalize that anyone that defeated you must be resorting to ridiculous means. No. YOU LOST. Get over it.
          Sock puppet? Everyone can see how you rode in like a white knight to attack when “Jim H” was reduced to Argumentum ad Hominem. At the same time, “Lachlan” continued the personal insults when “Jim H” went silent (most likely to try and preserve “his” reputation. When you were clearly —LOSING— the argument, the moderator magically appears, along with the excuse that he “normally doesn’t step in” to echo your sentiments. Really Phineas? Did you think that people couldn’t tell that you are actually the moderator? That kind of sock puppetry is typical of biased individuals who want to appear unbiased … so they use sock-puppets to do the “dirty work”. No, it is not “paranoia”. It is obvious, especially when one sees how quickly you “notice” posts being deleted. Lol. You’re trying to win by cheating … you are very —DISHONEST— and undeserving of being a moderator.
          Closed-minded and arrogant? That would be you “Dannius Awesomous”, “Phineas McClintock”, “Lachlan Willams”, etc… In the future try to use names that don’t have the same flow of syllables. It’s a giveaway.
          —–There shouldn’t have even been a debate.—–
          As far as “Jim H” being a typical social justice warrior bully (like you), sure: there is no debate or doubt that you are. All the attempts by you as “Phineas” just proves that you are a COWARD, a LIAR and generally a very —DISHONEST— individual. You couldn’t win the debate and it should have ended with you doing the HONORABLE thing and admitting that defeat. But … no, you had to resort to cheating, and by so doing, prove that you are the stereo-typical self-righteous Internet social justice warrior.
          —–I was just sharing what I witnessed and my perspective on it.—–
          No. You were promoting misinformation in an attempt to salvage the character of “Jim H”. That failed so you resorted to underhanded methods. It was obvious that you are either the moderator, or, connected to him. You’re a COWARD. If you don’t think so, then try and debate here, where you are not protected. No curious “deletions” will save you here, loser.
          —–But, you insisted on digging your own grave. Best of luck.—–
          No. You insisted on trying to win the debate. When you couldn’t you resorted to cheating. It is obvious and the grave you see is the one that you buried your reputation (be it as “Phineas” or as “Dannius Awesomous”) in.
          Best of luck trying to resurrect that outside of your little area of control, coward. You are the face of —DISHONESTY— and why few have much patience left for self-righteous bullies like you.

        3. Good one. Mod’s that do that are FRAUD-erators. Thanks for being there.

        4. That “fraud-erator” sure sounds like Phineas:
          https://disqus.com/by/danniusawesomus/
          Here is the sock-puppet responding to a Fraud-erator:
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liveactionnews/a_pro_lifer8217s_view_on_paid_family_leave/#comment-2686876260
          That’s the problem with a lot of discussion sites. They are often moderated by those who are very partial to Liberal views. Notice how this moderator deletes on-topic and non-rule-violating posts just because some cry-baby flagged it. I doubt if Geezus even flags the many personal-attack posts targeting him.
          Lachlan Willaims and Jim H can attack Geezus with reckless abandon, but even the mention of how Phineas lies, and wow does that guy lie, and Geezus gets his post deleted.
          There’s little in the way of fair play there.

        5. Phineas is a total fraud, a liar and coward. I’ve dared him to challenge you where he can’t hide behind mods.
          Notice the silence. Ahahahhaah.

        6. He’s far too much of a coward to take the challenge, as is “Phineas”. These are stereotypical “Internet tough guys” (well, really girls but hey, they like to think and dress as guys).

        7. It is quite apparent that “Phineas” is really “Dannius”. He got more than he bargained for so he had to “cheat” and start deleting. A more cowardly person there is not.

        8. Here’s the latest for “Dannius”, er, “Phineas”……
          In response to the post to ErrantV2 from the coward, Phineas McClintock:
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liveactionnews/a_pro_lifer8217s_view_on_paid_family_leave/#comment-2695435439
          —–🙂 I flagged nothing. The mod warned him and Geezus continued posting immature personal attacks. But of course, I’m lying, right? 😉—–
          While ErrantV2 mentioned that my posts were obviously being flagged, it is not relevant as to which particular sock puppet did the flagging. The point is that they were clearly being flagged as a method to suppress what you could not legitimately debate.
          That mod “warning” by DanniusAwesomus was in itself very suspicious in that it appeared when you clearly got backed into a corner. Moderators should never take sides like he clearly did. Also, in comparison to posts from you, “Lachlan Williams” and “Jim H” my posts are extremely respectful. Anyone can see that the three of you lace every response with pejoratives, insults and taunts. In any other forum, you lot would have been banned after a couple of hours.
          There is little doubt that you are either a sock puppet of DanniusAwesomus, or a colleague of his (or hers). The progression was telltale. “Jim H” gets into trouble, and out comes you and “Lachlan”. While the latter attempts to enrage via standard stalk-n-troll, you attempt to “win” via debate. The problem was that “Lachlan” was not successful, and, you underestimated the abilities of your adversary. When you started to lose not just the debate, but your reputation and dignity, you had to resort to “calling in the cavalry” and post as DanniusAwesomus.
          That is about the most —COWARDLY— and —DISHONEST— act I have seen on a forum thread. You, as DanniusAwesomus has violated the role of moderator and should be immediately removed from that position.
          —–Haha, mopped the floor. He did drag me into a stupid debate I repeatedly said I didn’t think should even be a debate, if that’s what you mean.—–
          You were summarily defeated —AND— humiliated as was “Jim H”. You were so embarrassed by the shellacking that you had to call in the moderator (which really is either you or your pal). That is why you have to brag about your life. That is why you have to create sock puppets to attack people.
          The problem was that you had the telltale hubris of the typical Internet “hero” that thought you could win a debate with one of those dumb conservatives. You got in way over your head and had to try to foul out. Essentially, your conduct proves the point that you social justice warriors are just a bunch of cowards and bullies. You’re all talk, but no substance. You hide behind your “safe spaces” and cast stones at others. Do you really wonder why the world is sick of you entitled idiots?
          —–Past that, y’all can’t prove poop. Can’t prove Jim doesn’t usually attempt to carry on a civil debate and can’t prove that I’m lying or a sock puppet. I have no interest in even engaging in a debate on such lame issues.—–
          I —DID— prove that Jim was an uncouth and disrespectful bully that resorts to personal attack when he is challenged. I also showed that it is very likely that you are just a sock puppet of the moderator and have such a fragile ego that you can’t stand being publically humiliated — so you have those incriminating posts deleted.
          That you are afraid to engage in a debate where you cannot run and hide behind a moderator when the going gets tough is —PROOF— enough that you are a —COWARD— and a —DISHONEST— individual that knows you’ll get your rear-end handed to you on a silver platter.
          —–If you take that as a win/floor mopping, as I told Geezus, enjoy! 3 cheers for you! I’m gonna go do something real with my day while y’all sit around online gossipping about Jim.—–
          LOL x 10.
          You resort to “shaming” speech just like the high-school girl we all suspect you are. You were perfectly happy to spend time debating when you foolish thought you were winning. However, when you realized that you were the prey and not the predator, you try to disengage via any childish method at your disposal.
          You got beaten, and savagely. Originally, it was just your “argument” being destroyed, but as you put your integrity in front as a human shield, it became a legitimate target and casualty. Your reputation as “Phineas” is worthless, as is the reputation of “DanniusAwesomus” being an unbiased and competent moderator. Jim? Jim is nothing but a juvenile troll that knows he is promoting propaganda. NONE of you, your sock puppets, or sycophants have survived intact. Gossip? You talk like a high school girl… that is because you are one and it is —OBVIOUS—.
          —–Challenge Geezus? Gladly, if the topic can move beyond midde school gossip material.—–
          You talk big, but you’re just evading now. You’re a —COWARD—, a —FRAUD— and about as dishonest a person as it comes. That’s par for the course when it comes to Internet social justice warriors though. You are in good company within your sock drawer of friends. Get lost, troll.

        9. Response to Phineas McClintock:
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liveactionnews/a_pro_lifer8217s_view_on_paid_family_leave/#comment-2695693032
          —–Deflection? I’m addressing exactly what you said in your first sentence to me. Did you confuse yourself already?—–
          While ErrantV2 said “you were flagging” it —IS— a deflection to focus on who exactly did the flagging as opposed to flagging happening. Trolls like you always try to deflect into some aspect that isn’t likely provable on a venue like “Live Action News”. Heck, apparently anyone opposing the views of the moderator [sic] are not even allowed to defend themselves against personal attacks — especially attacks from his/her own sycophants or sock puppets. The point is that there are copious examples of posts that oppose you that curiously get deleted while a plethora of your Argumentum ad Hominem remain.
          Either you are directly flagging, your sycophant is flagging, you use a sock puppet to flag, or you are connected to (or even actually are) the moderator. It is —THAT OBVIOUS—.
          —–Haha, cool! Laugh away with your like-minded Disqus dwellers. The sane world is laughing at you.—–
          Your over-played bravado is a thin veneer, “Phineas”. You know you lost the argument and had to retreat behind a moderator (which likely is you). You also know that most reasonable people can see that you are both a —BULLY— and a —COWARD—.
          EVERYONE is shaking their heads at you, Dannius, er Phineas. You violate every convention of good netizenship and are now exposed as the severely —DISHONEST— person that you are. You are suffering from delusions if you think anyone in the sane segment of the population agrees with you.
          —–Hide behind the mods? Oh no no my good sir. Or ma’am. I just don’t care to engage in middle school caliber arguments and name calling. 🙂—–
          (…or “ma’am”? LOL. No, ErrantV2 is clearly male, and your overly-emotional responses are very much that of an immature woman’s)
          You are —LYING— once again.
          You have no issue with slinging the mud with insults and name-calling when you are comforted by how the so-called “moderator” will come to your rescue when you are trapped. Grade-school taunting and childishness is your specialty. A quick perusal of your posting history reveals that.
          No. You are merely RATIONALIZING your recognition that you actually lost the argument, and would lose any argument because you are that unarmed with intelligence. The difference is that you can stay in denial when you can run and hide behind the your “moderator”. You’re not just a —COWARD—, you are a —FRAUD— as well.
          —–You’re right, I am being defensive. I’m stating the truth against false accusations from you and Geezus. Is that a problem for you?—–
          ROTFLMAO. You are stating “truth”?
          Everyone can see how you assume that what you say is the truth (and, no, your recollections, while “accurate” in your mind, was clearly —NOT— the whole truth … this was already explained to you too). In the meantime you surreptitiously label what your opposition stated (and stated with clear evidence as opposed to your “trust me, I can provide no exhibit, but trust me”) as “false accusations”. You’re a joke, Dannius/Phineas.
          Your level of —DISHONESTY— is a problem for your credibility. It is not a “problem” for ErrantV2 or myself. You’re a —FRAUD—.
          —–You used to accusing people of shit and them just going along with it?—–
          Nice try.
          No one merely “accused” you of anything. The charges against you were developed from observation of your actions, both past and present. They describe a very arrogant, but consciously —DISHONEST— individual who is dedicated to harming any who disagree with her as much as promoting misinformation. That is typical of the Online social justice warrior. They want only their narrative to survive and opposition to be suppressed by any method, regardless of how underhanded. That is you. It is proven by your continued childish behavior.
          —–So, let’s get this right. I stated what I witnessed with Jim. The mod (who has witnessed wayyy more of Jim’s comments than you or I) agreed with it.—–
          Right, let’s get it “right”.
          Your premise was that “Jim H” was far more dedicated to civil debate than not. To that end you say that he was personally attacked by others in the past when he was trying to have a debate. To that end, the moderator stepped in (and curiously when you were backed into a corner with your constant —LYING—) and stated that “Jim H” was the target of attack in the past, and that he was “workable”.
          However, and this is a BIG however, the contention was that REGARDLESS of his past, “Jim H” is a bully and resorts to personal attack the moment a person posts anything in opposition. Neither you, nor the “moderator” (who is suspiciously you sycophant or actually your sock-puppeteer) addressed this. Both of “you” merely deflected from it. So… yes… let’s get it right. You have not refuted the allegation about “Jim H”.
          —–Geezus creates a 90,000 page expose on why I am a liar and a sock puppet, so ridiculous that the mod of an extremely conservative blog warns him against accusing others of lying and sock puppetry.—–
          Nice try.
          The length and depth of that expose was required as it often is with trolls like you. If the case is not comprehensive, dishonest individuals tend to exploit any lack of coverage as ambiguous and therefore try to dismiss the charges as vague and unsupported.
          Was the case ridiculous? No. Not in the slightest. Your constant use of straw man arguments, your deliberate deceit (as you do on your very post being refuted here) was well documented and critical to any discussion where a participant is attempting to apply misinformation.
          Did the moderator warn against this? No. the “moderator” betrayed both his/her lack of neutrality as well as his/her lack of understanding how important exposing —DISHONESTY— is to maintain a proper debate. Your constant —LYING— and obvious sock-puppetry was all part of your campaign to deceive others. That is what trolls do. That is what was being exposed. It is doubtful that any experienced moderator would disallow such exposure, and at the same time allow the constant harassment from “Lachlan Williams”, “Jim H” and yourself. That clearly points to collusion, and more likely that you are just a sock puppet of the moderator, “DanniusAwesomus”. The similar cadence of the moderators name with yours, “Phineas McClintock” is another clue that you are one and the same.
          While “DanniusAwesomus” is a moderator on a conservative site, he/she is not necessarily aligned. In fact, it is “DanniusAwesomus”’s own words that show he/she is very liberal in view:
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liveactionnews/house_of_representatives_passes_bill_to_defund_planned_parenthood/#comment-2262608206
          …Bokuden, I understand where you’re coming from. To be honest, unlike some of my pro-life comrades, I’m opposed to religion in government. I don’t believe creation should be taught in public schools, I don’t believe laws should be based on the Bible or anyone’s religious perspective. I support gay marriage and sometimes vote Democrat…
          Nice try. You are purposely trying to deceive people again, Dannius, er, Phineas. That “moderator” is neither conservative nor actually working in isolation from you. Even if he/she was, it is likely you are exploiting the “minimum flag count” that many sites have. All one has to do is to get a couple of I.P. Addresses to group flag a post. The moderators, usually due to being lazy, merely remove “pending” posts rather than actually judge them within context. Either way, you’re not fooling anyone.
          That you are reluctant to step away from your “safe space” to debate one-on-one is proof enough that you know you have no real position and are nothing but a —-DISHONEST— troll. Free of moderator or devious gang-flagging, you are nothing, coward.
          —–Then Geezus keeps at it and gets his comment deleted. That’s a victory for y’all? Haha. Ok. You guys must reeeeaaally look for the silver lining. I’ll take that anyday! Nice “win” gang!! You guys embarass yourselves.—-
          ROTFL.
          Nice try at deflecting. The victory is in exposing your LIES and your general character that you tried to use as a “human shield”. My comments were “deleted” for no legitimate reason. That is obvious to anyone who reads the reposted one (where your “moderator” cannot remove it).
          It is the CLEAR VICTORY that you could not hold your own in a debate and had to resort to Argumentum ad Hominem, Lying and finally to pleas to the moderator to disengage. Chances are, if you are not using an exploit on the flagging minimum, you are actually the moderator in disguise. If you are the latter it is a HUGE VICTORY in that you have exposed how —DISHONEST— an individual you really are.
          Yes. It is a WIN to yet again expose another “social justice warrior” as a childish and entitled bully. It is a WIN to show that you are nothing but a —DISHONEST— individual who will stop at nothing to “win” even if it means destroying your own reputation.
          You’ve not only EMBARRASED yourself, you have basically removed any credibility that you may have had, and have cast a lot of doubt on the integrity of the moderator, “DanniusAwesomus” too. Nice going, LOSER.

        10. In response to Phineas McClintock’s post to ErrantV2:
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liveactionnews/a_pro_lifer8217s_view_on_paid_family_leave/#comment-2696717315
          —–“Yes, deflecting as in focusing on “who” did the flagging as opposed to “that the flagging happened”. Don’t play dumb, kid.”
          Are you not the one who said it looked like I AM THE ONE who was flagging? You really sound confused. I address exactly what you say and now you’re changing your point.—–
          That’s the kind of —DISHONEST— argument we have come to expect from you , Phineas.
          Whether or not you —PERSONALLY— issued the flag does not affect the assertion that certain posts that are unfavorable to you are flagged. One can just as easily flag via sock-puppet or sycophant. The point is that flagging occurred. You are trying to deflect from that. ErrantV2 was neither confused nor sounded confused. You address a detail of the point that does not affect the outcome of flagging, so you are just deflecting. That is weak even for you, Dannuis/Phineas.
          —–Why am I supposed to care about Lachlan’s posts?—–
          —-DISHONEST—- as usual. That’s just a deflection.
          ErrantV2 did not ask you to “care” about Lachlan’s posts. What he illustrated, and what you cannot refute, is that Lachlan was a troll dedicated to attacking me while you attempted to “win” a debate. He couldn’t derail me and you couldn’t win either. The point was that the obvious trolling by Lachlan remained while perfectly good posts by me were curiously flagged and deleted. Most people can see the —DISHONESTY— going on there. The so-called moderator is a fraud, and, in all likelihood, probably —YOU—.
          —–Are you confused? How on earth is an ultra-conservative blog my “safe space???” This is a safe space for you and your gang of conservative internet bullies.—–
          Wow. You are going to try that angle every time aren’t you? While Live Action News is a labeled a conservative site, it is apparent that Dannius (aka “YOU”) the moderator is really quite a liberal. Here are what Dannius wrote about her, er, himself:
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liveactionnews/house_of_representatives_passes_bill_to_defund_planned_parenthood/#comment-2262608206
          …Bokuden, I understand where you’re coming from. To be honest, unlike some of my pro-life comrades, I’m opposed to religion in government. I don’t believe creation should be taught in public schools, I don’t believe laws should be based on the Bible or anyone’s religious perspective. I support gay marriage and sometimes vote Democrat…
          …it is likely you are fully aware of this, and are just trying to fool people. Sorry, Phineas, we all saw through that ages ago. Live Action News —IS— a “safe space” for you since you are favored by, or are actually the moderator.
          —–The side that is demanding a rematch is almost always the side that lost. Is that why you’re so desperate to see another debate, somewhere even safer for you and your gang than LAN? You couldn’t even hold your own HERE? This is one of the few places you apparently hold the majority, where could possibly be a worse place for me? Yet you want to stack the cards even more in your favor?—–
          No. The side that is asking you to debate outside of a certain “space” is usually the side that recognizes that said space is biased in favor of certain individuals. That you can taunt and attack people all you want, but others get deleted when they address your —DISHONESTY— is compelling proof that you are fully aware of that advantage and exploit it.
          Where is there a worse place for you? Well, practically anywhere where you don’t have the advantage of leveraging or actually being the moderator. You know this and it is why you refuse to meet in debate outside of your “safe space”. You’re a —COWARD—and you know you will lose.
          —–I’m not sure how many times I need to tell you, I will gladly debate Geezus IF THE SUBJECT MATTER CAN MOVE BEYOND MIDDLE SCHOOL CHEERLEADER GOSSIP. And I’ll also add that some basic rules of debate etiquette would need to be established.—–
          Lol. —LIAR—.
          Let’s see. A debate on how social justice warriors usually resort to underhanded methods, including personal attack, deflective arguments, and even clearly LYING, seems rather ON TOPIC and far above “high school cheerleader gossip”. You seem to avoid that with every disingenuous rationalization in the book.
          Basic rules of debate? How about not LYING or using straw man arguments, or avoiding personal attack? If that were the case, your posts would literally be … nothing.
          Etiquette? That is a laugh coming from a disrespectful little troll like you. All you know is to attack people and lie when you get cornered. There is little doubt as to why you refuse to engage in debate outside of your “safe space”. You’re a —FRAUD—, a —LIAR— as well as a —COWARD—.
          —–You people LOVE to debate topics that can’t be proven, like Jim’s history. NEITHER SIDE CAN PROVE WHAT HE USUALLY DOES, HIS HISTORY IS PRIVATE. So it gives y’all the chance to bully and gang up and cherry pick Jim’s quotes until you appear (to your own selves) stronger than the other side.—–
          Nope. You are as —DISHONEST— as you expected to be now.
          It is you that tries to bring in the “unseen” record of Saint Jim’s behavior. In fact, Jim herself (Jim is clearly not a man based on his emotional approach to debate) hides her history as it is easily mined to show her contradiction and other fallacious “debate” methods. No one is “cherry picking” when they point out the record of Jim’s posting that —IS— visible here. If he/she was such a model netizen, it would show through even in the available record. It doesn’t and you are —LYING—. You don’t just appear “weak”, you appear as a VERY DISHONEST individual.
          —–But, as I clearly and successfully proved just moments after you started engaging me, when facts ARE available, you don’t give a shit. You guys just want to insult people and tell them how dishonest they are when they disagree with you, instead of dealing with reality. So insecure y’all.—–
          Ahahahahahahhahhahha…. Etc.. etc. You are truly out-of-your-mind if you think you “successfully” proved anything at any time (well, aside from the fact that you are a habitual —L-I-A-R—-).
          When facts are available? That is exactly where you failed. You claimed that “Jim H” had a history where he is congenial and dedicated to respectful debate when given the chance. ALL that was asked was that you provide some example of this contradiction to his present behavior. To that you offered nothing but a “trust me”. When challenged, you proceeded to evasion and argumentum ad hominem.
          You are the one that resorts to bullying when you feel your narrative is under scrutiny. Instead of accepting the reality that you are wrong, you become defiant and expose your true colors as a sycophant of “Jim”. Y’all very insecure. Stop trying to project that onto those you can’t debate.
          —–Let’s see, you guys are the ones who insisted on a lengthy debate over an internet commenter, declared me a liar and a sock puppet for jim and lachlan, and now you’re demanding a rematch. And I’m the one trying too hard?? Haha. Okay. 😉—–
          Nope. That is as disingenuous as you usually are.
          In reality, that “Jim H” resorts to personal attack when people question his narrative is well demonstrated and beyond debatable. What you tried to do was to introduce doubt where there really wasn’t any. When challenged it was clear that you “thought” you could handily defeat any opposition with the typical obfuscating methods of social justice warriors. That didn’t work so you started into the —DISHONEST— routine of red herrings, straw man arguments and passive aggressive personal attack. It was —YOU— that insisted, by your actions, on a lengthy campaign of by evading simple truths.
          YES. You have proven that you are a habitual —LIAR— and a —FRAUD—. There is no longer any doubt. You clearly were working in conjunction with “Jim H” as well as the sock-puppet “Lachlan”. Chances are good that you are actually the moderator, “DanniusAwesomus” in disguise. This was noted by his curious rescue attempt when you were cornered.
          Yes. You are clearly the one that was “trying too hard” (both to appear to be “winning” and to injure your opposition for helping you in making a —FOOL— out of youself.)
          —–I challenge YOU to ask the mod whether I flagged, and you still won’t, so until you have the guts to do that and back up your lame assertion, don’t waste your time challenging me to anything.—–
          That’s just a red herring, troll.
          Why should ErrantV2 have to do that? It doesn’t matter WHO specifically precipitated the deletion. It only matters that it is happening, and happening usually when you can’t refute a response. It is YOU that doesn’t have the “guts” to respond or to debate people where you cannot have posts you can’t address removed.
          You are just —EVADING— (like usual). If you can’t take up ErrantV2’s challenge to engage where you cannot depend on cheating, you are the —DISHONEST COWARD— that everyone knows you are.
          I’ve already proven what I need to.
          If by that, you mean, “proven that you are a typically over-confident social justice warrior who has made a complete fool of herself”, then —YES—, you’ve proven that in spades.

        11. Thanks for that. Jimmy and Phinny are curiously silent here. Then again, that is expected of fraudulent bullies.

        12. That kind of deception is rampant in the media. Recently, Facebook got outed for favoring their agenda as far as what they showed as trending. You can imagine what happens in small-time shops like Live Action News.
          It’s time to clean house.

        13. Clean house? I dunno. Jim is like an old dog with poor bladder control. I know she stinks the place up, but she has been here so long that it seems cruel to put her down while she still has a bit of spark left.

        14. Response to Dannius Awesomus’ post to WGC:
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liveactionnews/a_pro_lifer8217s_view_on_paid_family_leave/#comment-2699089879
          —–Hey WGC!
          I appreciate your input. Just wanted to let you know that we’re not protecting any specific person here, nor do we view any one commenter as the victim.—–
          Perhaps that where the mistake begins, Dannius. While we should enter any situation with the open mind that all parties are essentially after the truth, we cannot simply assume that every participant is dedicated to that objective.
          Those with the agenda to promote their narrative, and their narrative only, will often depend on overseers to have that assumption. Whether we want to believe it or not, there are those who will use every underhanded trick in the book to see that any challenger (and challenger) is suppressed. The —HONESTY— of participants in a discussion is crucial to the communication of truth. That is why it is important to identify when and where people are purposely misinforming the viewership at large. If that is muzzled, then purveyors of lies can easily obfuscate issues, and therefore influence the hearts and minds of the audience. Do not think for one instance that those seeking to promote falsehoods will not stoop to that level.
          THAT is why asking for people to steer away from identifying deliberately fallacious statements, and those who repeatedly post falsehoods, is really taking the side of miscreants. Certainly, if it is merely an accusation without merit, that should be curtailed, but when people present clear and comprehensive evidence and reasoning to support a case, it is a travesty to be “deleting” such posts especially when they do not violate any rule of conduct within the context of the discussion.
          —–We try to take each comment at face value and determine whether it’s abusive. If it is, we delete it. When that is done to Jim, the comment is deleted. When it is done by Jim, it is deleted. I’m looking at the moderation record right now.—–
          This too is really a tenuous approach.
          Face value implies that each comment is viewed in isolation and not within the context of why it appeared the way it did. Certainly, you probably do look at the context, but what I have witnessed is that you often delete one post and allow the both the post that it was in response to, and the subsequent rebuttal of the deleted post to remain. In my particular case, you even allowed the opposition to post a taunt that my post was deleted. You may claim that you are not taking sides, but that is about as biased as it gets, is it not?
          —–As for my earlier comment about Jim, I was attempting to steer a conversation away from who is being dishonest and who is being a sock puppet and who is a SJW, towards more relevant issues. I said that I find Jim to be a generally workable guy. In hindsight, my comment may have been a mistake, as it may have appeared I was taking sides, and the conversation is still going on.—–
          It can only be seen as “taking a side” since you posted only to me, and not to the opposition. That in itself fueled the anticipated gloating by “Phineas” that you were taking his/her position.
          Again, the identification of falsehood and, especially the repeated employment of falsehoods in a debate is —CRITICAL— to any topic. If people are stymied from identifying lies and habitual lying then anyone who wants to surreptitiously promote false positions have a great advantage. It is entirely —REVEVANT— to point out fallacy and intentional employment of fallacy. Debate becomes irrelevant if you allow it.
          As I mentioned to “Phineas”, Jim will likely be “workable” with the moderator. It is all part of the calculated moves by propagandists to gain the confidence of moderators. That is how they “play victim”. There is no way anyone being honest can say that Jim does anything but resort to childish personal attack the moment his/her narrative is challenged. The record is in plain sight and unmistakable.
          —–I understand that we can’t make everyone happy, and I welcome input on how we can improve. As I told Jim and will tell anyone, if there are any specific abusive comments that I missed (which happens sometimes due to the sheer number of comments), feel free to contact me at anytime.
          Thanks! And thanks for being a part of the conversation here.—–
          Of course, no one expects to gratify everyone when tasked with moderation. However, if a forum is committed to healthy debate, it should take steps against astroturfing trolls. The way “Jim H” acts is telltale of that type of propagandist agenda. He is congenial to any who agree with him, but will quickly resort to personal attacks when he feels challenged.
          The predicted appearance of a trolling account dedicated to one purpose — that of trying to irritate and discourage those opposing Jim — is all part of the strategy. When that proves to be ineffective, the “higher road” intellectual appears and tries to win the debate. That too failed as this “intellectual” was shown to be employing numerous fallacious arguments. Once that happened, it too descended into Argument ad Hominem. That is when you stepped in.
          However, instead of recognizing the conscious attack via troll and pseudo-intellectual, you essentially admonished the target of their attacks for pointing out that they were using underhanded methods.
          I don’t expect you to “make everyone happy”, but I do expect that moderators actually promote real debate (including pointing out lies and liars to limit their misinformation) instead of deleting posts that defend against their assaults.
          Just as with participants, the reputation of a moderator is important, and is judged through their actions. I welcome you to show us where I was varying from the path to achieving the truth on the topic (consider too the incessant harassment from “Jim”, and “Phineas”) It makes far more sense that both “Phineas” and “Jim H” be at least ejected from the site for really being nothing but trolls.

        15. Hi Geezus!
          Thank you for your input.
          I hope you understand that the toughest part of my job is discerning which comments are actually abusive, and which are rude but tolerated: the gray area. Phineas’ last post to you would be an example of this. There is no name calling, no vulgarity, etc., but it may still be over the top in terms of attitude. If I start deleting for attitude though, where do we draw the line? When I delete such comments, I hear complaints. When I don’t delete such comments, I hear complaints. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, I welcome input; my point is that it’s a very difficult balance to achieve.
          I agree with much of what you said and can identify with where you’re coming from. Now, let me ask you to identify with where I’m coming from in regards to some of your posts. My job is to keep conversations free from abusive posts, as well as to try to keep them at least vaguely on topic. Do you truly feel it is beneficial to the conversation to right away tell people they are being disingenuous if they respectfully share an opinion, no matter how wrong that opinion may be? I’m not asking that in a condescending way, I’m asking straight up, and I’m also asking this as a fellow commenter, not just a moderator. Jim may be disingenuous, I don’t know. But are you so sure he is lying that you would rather talk about him for days rather than talk about the real issues? I know you’re a good debater, I see your comments. Why don’t you use that skill and debate something meaningful? If Jim is being disingenuous, or Phineas, whoever, it will come out. I feel that spending your words on telling people that they are lying or sock puppets is a waste of your talent, respectfully. I also feel that it can make you look like the bad guy, which I don’t think is the case. What if you let Jim and whoever else post insulting things if they want to, I will delete them if they cross the line, and you focus on using your talent and intelligence on more relevant subject matter. I just don’t see how arguing about who is honest and who is a sock puppet accomplishes anything for your cause. Can you see where I’m coming from, both as a moderator and as a fellow commenter?
          We’d like to have your continued participation on LAN. As you noticed, I’m currently discussing the moderating with several commenters there, and your input is welcome. I’m not familiar with this site, and honestly I have several tattoos, as does my wife; would you be willing to move this conversation back to LAN? Thanks for your time.

        16. You’ve had the biggest point all along all I saw was you just being hostile wow was I wrong. Jim just replied to a bunch of my comments as if Phineas him and I were a team and I just left it. There goal is hostility. Your goal is having a point. Ugh I see your point of view now.

        17. I notice that Phineas McClintock has changed his user name from Fenton Snow to Phineas McClintock, *and* has hidden his history. Just as suspected he is a FRAUD, a COWARD a LIAR and a TROLL.
          Good Job at outing her.

        18. As mentioned to Geezus…
          I notice that Phineas McClintock has changed his user name from Fenton Snow to Phineas McClintock, *and* has hidden his history. Just as suspected he is a FRAUD, a COWARD a LIAR and a TROLL.
          Good Job at outing her.

        19. She is Jim H.
          *****************
          Only a woman who hates men would chose those names if she pretended to be a man.

        20. It doesn’t take long for these *shadow warriors* to hide their tracks once you and/or Geezus are onto them. lol.

        21. I kinda figured that Jimmy and Phinny were probably the same dudette. The only stalker crazier is dERp.

        22. No worries. If you eventually see and understand the truth, then that’s one more person that does.

        23. —–Hi Geezus!
          Thank you for your input.—–
          No problem, Dannius. The pleasure was all mine.
          *****
          —–I hope you understand that the toughest part of my job is discerning which comments are actually abusive, and which are rude but tolerated: the gray area.—–
          That is the problem with trying to evaluate posts as individual events, with at most a measure against what it was a response to. It is recommended that authorities recognize trends, and recognize them quickly, and remove these trouble-makers entirely. Here is why…
          Like most subversive campaigns, bullying is not a single post, or a couple of posts here and there. It is a collective of events that, together, are quite revealing of the agenda. “Jim H” is an excellent example of how Online “thought” bullies operate. What he/she does is to post falsehoods, sometimes lacing those falsehoods with lightly veiled denigration, and then defend against any opposition with every form of disreputable “debate” method imagined.
          Most often, the tools are “pleas to ignorance”, “pleas to higher authority”, “straw man arguments” and any way to deflect the argument into minor details that are actually irrelevant to the main point. Once that is called out, and effectively thwarted, it is onto the Argument ad Hominem. The insulting starts off with passive aggression, and quickly escalates to unmistakable insults and name-calling.
          Propagandists like that are fully aware of how to “play the game”. They are happy to appear “workable” (as you put it) since, they are the one promoting misinformation. Why? Easy. Anyone that is telling LIES would be open to “compromise”. Hey, if someone keeps trying to fool people that 2+2=3, they still achieve their goals when the middle ground, 3.5, is chosen to be the answer. Furthermore, they depend on the sometime difficult task on identifying who starts the fight. If one is always the instigator, then being seen as the instigator half the time, is also …. Already winning.
          It really isn’t that difficult to see who plays those games. While the journey to the truth is far more engaging and exciting when there is misconception to overcome (aka a great forum that everyone wants to read and participate in), deliberate and protracted crusades to generate doubt when there really isn’t any is just a nuisance (and it is meant to be that).
          Step back and see “Jim H” and “Phineas” for what they really are. That makes moderation far simpler than judging individual posts. Trolls and misinformation purveyors depend on authority focusing on case-by-case inspection.
          *****
          —–Phineas’ last post to you would be an example of this. There is no name calling, no vulgarity, etc., but it may still be over the top in terms of attitude. If I start deleting for attitude though, where do we draw the line?—–
          Personally, I have no problem with “Phineas”’s last post if I am not handcuffed from refuting. All I have to do is what I have always done: point out how the detractor is being illogical, or childish, or resorting to lies. This works as the wider audience gets to see how picking apart subversive posts has the dual effect of destroying the post, as well as the credibility of those that try to bully that way.
          Measuring “tone” or attitude is not always easy, especially when dealing with passive aggressive attacks that employ innuendo and double entendre. Trolls and trouble-makers depend on that. A better way is to “step back” and view the way a poster acts in general. The attitude is much easier to determine, and the line is easy to draw (as in, it’s actually very apparent who is a propagandist or a troll).
          *****
          —–When I delete such comments, I hear complaints. When I don’t delete such comments, I hear complaints. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, I welcome input; my point is that it’s a very difficult balance to achieve.—–
          The only plaint you get from me about that is that I should be given the opportunity to defend myself instead of being constrained while the opposition throws another sucker punch (can you see how that really looks like someone “taking sides”?)
          So, “balance” in finding what posts cross lines, be they lines of “attitude” or other, is not effective against misinformation specialists or experienced trolls. A more effective way is to look at the sum total of how certain posters behave, and decide from the evaluation of that.
          *****
          ——I agree with much of what you said and can identify with where you’re coming from. Now, let me ask you to identify with where I’m coming from in regards to some of your posts. My job is to keep conversations free from abusive posts, as well as to try to keep them at least vaguely on topic. Do you truly feel it is beneficial to the conversation to right away tell people they are being disingenuous if they respectfully share an opinion, no matter how wrong that opinion may be? I’m not asking that in a condescending way, I’m asking straight up, and I’m also asking this as a fellow commenter, not just a moderator.—–
          Keeping posts from being unnecessarily abusive is just one aspect of moderating content. As mentioned, those who intend to misinform the public usually retreat to innuendo and lightly veiled insults to appear more innocuous. As mentioned, barring false information from being repeatedly posted is critical to discovering the truth on a topic.
          Internet sites and applications earn certificates to provide some assurance that what they provide is as they advertise, and that no malicious information is lurking in their delivery. Posters on forums, as providers of information (even as “opinion”) are subject to the same scrutiny. If not, “debate” becomes nothing more than a spectrum of random thoughts where enterprising propagandists can thrive. It should be easy to recognize that he/she who tells a lie often and loudly will prevail in that environment. What do you really think “Jim H” and “Phineas McClintock” are doing?
          Is it beneficial to a conversation to identify disingenuous information? Seriously, Dannius?
          It is absolutely —CRITICAL— to the health of a conversation if specious material is identified, refuted and, if repeatedly posted, removed along with the purveyor. If we allow deliberate falsehoods to infest a dialogue, it encourages those who want to create confusion to carry on their campaign. Bad information at the very least dilutes the truth. If it appears often enough, bad information will bury the truth. Really Dannius, a moderator should be completely aware of that. It doesn’t matter how “respectfully” the misinformation was delivered (and it should be noted that “Jim H” rarely delivers information “respectfully” by anyone’s opinion.)
          Both “Jim H” and “Phineas” recycle their lies so often that they cannot be seen as anything BUT habitual —LIARS—. While that is an unflattering truth, it is the truth.
          (You and I are both guest posters on this site, so, you —ARE— asking as a peer here.)
          *****
          —–Jim may be disingenuous, I don’t know. But are you so sure he is lying that you would rather talk about him for days rather than talk about the real issues? I know you’re a good debater, I see your comments. Why don’t you use that skill and debate something meaningful? If Jim is being disingenuous, or Phineas, whoever, it will come out. I feel that spending your words on telling people that they are lying or sock puppets is a waste of your talent, respectfully.—–
          Once more, it is crucial to the discovery of truth (especially in young and impressionable minds) that misinformation, and those that clearly intend to promote that falsification to be exposed, by comprehensive refutation if necessary. Propagandists rely on this plea to congeniality in order to ply their trade of fiction.
          I am flattered that you see my debating skills as worthy. They are used for the very worthwhile cause of exposing —LIARS— and those that use underhanded methods to promote false concepts. Really, how is preventing the neophyte from going down the wrong path not a noble cause … even if the process could mean the temporary “belief” that I am the villain (which in time, most realize that I am not)?
          *****
          —–I also feel that it can make you look like the bad guy, which I don’t think is the case. What if you let Jim and whoever else post insulting things if they want to, I will delete them if they cross the line, and you focus on using your talent and intelligence on more relevant subject matter. I just don’t see how arguing about who is honest and who is a sock puppet accomplishes anything for your cause. Can you see where I’m coming from, both as a moderator and as a fellow commenter?—–
          Dannius, people who are deliberately fraudulent depend on authorities to ignore the trend and only deal with posts that violate “tone” or specific methods of delivery. They fully realize that repeating —LIES— even after those lies are exposed is often easily over-looked by moderators. The authenticity, and reliability of a participant is WHOLLY tied to any given topic. We cannot gloss over how, given the ability to promote —LIES—, propagandists use “debate” as a forum to ply their mischief. It accomplishes much to identify habitual liars. That these liars resort to personal attack and evasion when exposed helps too. That is why deleting posts that expose them is actually aiding and abetting misinformation.
          *****
          —–We’d like to have your continued participation on LAN. As you noticed, I’m currently discussing the moderating with several commenters there, and your input is welcome.—–
          I appreciate the invitation, and it has been brought to my attention that Phineas McClintock has seen fit to change her user name and hide her history. Personally, I welcome all opinions, even ones based in misinformation. But I have little tolerance for those who, instead of acknowledging the truth at least the relative weight of a reasoned argument, resort to trying to “injure” the opposition via name-calling, insulting. Furthermore, evasive methods are not “debate” and only serve to lose create confusion.
          I certainly will continue to post on your forum, but the exposure of misinformation, and, especially those who clearly use it repeatedly to mislead the public will be something I remain dedicated to. I endeavor to be as congenial as possible, but will meet hostility with sufficient and opposite force.
          From my observations, there are actually only a few posters who do this. Chances are, the removal of “Jim H” and “Phineas McClintock” would reduce the noise to a minimum. Again, opinions based on misinformation, or simply “belief” should be voiced. It is helpful to those that carry such wrong notions to get the advice from those that have better information or have deduced the truth via better reasoning. The truth is often frightful to those who think the lie makes for a better world. It actually doesn’t.
          *****
          —–I’m not familiar with this site, and honestly I have several tattoos, as does my wife; would you be willing to move this conversation back to LAN? Thanks for your time.—–
          No worries, Dannius. I will cheerfully continue this conversation on your site.
          This site was just one of many convenient forums where trolls (and they really are trolls as you will see in time) like the person behind “Jim H” fear to tread as they know their game of manipulation is difficult to play here. The tattoo aspect isn’t really critical, but feel free to discuss it here if you want. There are a couple of posters that are totally willing and able.

        24. Yeah it’s annoying having to deal with me so I apologize. But yeah Phineas and Jim are just continuing to cause problems. They don’t have argument anymore if they ever did.

        25. #Jim H
          *********************
          Thanks for starting my workday with that!

        26. That’s a painful post. The poor dog in my profile pic was senile and was loosing bowel control. Putting her down was the worst Saturday in my LIFE.

        27. Sorry to hear about your companion. I’m sure Jim doesn’t measure up in comparison.

        28. Jimmy is one angry immature woman that “thinks” she can browbeat those “knuckle-dragging, mouth breathers” but when she tries, she is rudely awakened that her confidence is built atop the fragile foundation of delusion.
          Ellsworth Moncton Toohey is probably another of her sock puppets. Speaking of which, I see Phineas McClintock has had all of her rambling attempts at refutations deleted. Her profile is gone now too. That was all too predictable. Special snowflakes melt rather quickly when they are outside of their Unicorns-and-Rainbow world.

        29. Thanks a lot. That caused a few minutes of uncontrollable gut-splitting laughter. Too true and too funny.

        30. A local basset rescue society is going to have a party this weekend. I hope I’ll get a chance to check it out.

        31. Hey Geezus!
          It appears my reply to you from several days ago was “detected as spam” for some reason. I’ll repost it here. I hope you had a great holiday weekend! Here goes:
          You make some good points. After seeing some of your earlier posts about this here, I think it actually may be more appropriate to continue this discussion outside LAN. I’m referring to some of your comments about me, which I think may be more appropriately discussed outside LAN, since I would like to avoid appearances of using my position to further my own opinion or protect myself.
          I’ll address that first. Let me begin by saying I am not offended by your opinion of me or my moderation. I have myself been frustrated with moderators on at least two occasions I can remember. I also believe that you should be free to express how you feel about this. In addition, yes, I can see how my comment to you and Phineas could have been perceived as me taking sides. If I were approaching the same situation again, I would likely word my comment differently, although I would still keep the same main point, which I will explain later.
          That being said, I think that’s a good tie-in to the rest of our discussion. Would you agree that incorrectly naming someone a liar or a sock puppet diminishes your credibility in a discussion, at least to the commenter and to those who know him or her? I believe you are much more convincing, both to your opposition and to observers, when you avoid such things. Your above comment to me is a great example of how you are capable of laying out a position without relying on personally discrediting the opposition. You stated your position, and explained your reasoning. While I do not agree with everything you said, you make a strong case. On the other hand, when you make the same points accompanied by a host of personal accusations, do you think your arguments come across as strong? Or would you agree that they may be perceived as grasping for straws, at least by the commenter who knows your accusation to be incorrect, and probably to some observers as well? Would you agree with my point here? Or do you believe such accusations truly further your cause, even when false?
          I suppose the answer to that question may relate to the answer to this question: what is your endgame in discussions at LAN? Are you debating to persuade? Which group of people do you think will be persuaded to your side due to you discussing everyone you consider liars and sock puppets, and even who you think is a woman posing as a man, rather than discussing something substantive? Sorry, that’s a whole lot of questions. 🙂
          As a side note, I also came across your opinion of my screen name, and while I do understand that Awesomus may appear to be arrogant, it is intended to be a joke, not a brag. I hope that you will understand that, since your screen name appears to sound very similar to a certain holy religious figure.
          Alright, jokes aside. In all seriousness, on LAN, I do not at all wish to be authoritarian, but I am required to enforce the standards given to me by my boss. When I discovered today the extent of this entire situation, both on LAN and here, I ran it by my boss. I confirmed that, in situations where conversation is centered on personal attacks and accusations, I am encouraged to promote a shift in topic, and delete if necessary. I understand your perspective on dishonest content, but it is not my job to censor information I do not agree with. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your post seemed to imply that I should delete comments from people who post “false” information, which is censorship. Surely, there are those who post nothing but profanity and insults: true trolls, and they are banned. I know you will disagree with this, and I respect that, but honestly that is not what I see from Jim or Phineas. I have seen them both begin conversations in a decent way, and be met with personal accusations and insults. This is not me taking sides, it is me doing my job per the standards given to me by my boss. It is my job to promote civil and relevant conversation at LAN, and I believe that through that, the truth will come out without the need for personal insults. Based on some comments I have seen from you, I know you are capable of debating relevant issues free of personal attacks, and I hope you will do so at LAN.
          Thank you for your time.

        32. I’m of two minds. My daughter wants me to get another dog because she’s concerned I don’t get enough exercise. I miss the big brown eyes pleading with me. But I DON’T miss the pee, poop or vomit, and I don’t miss the vet bills that racked up every spring when her arthritis acted up. Besides, this dog was pretty much well behaved and quiet (except for her last year when she got senile). She was Perfect. I’m afraid that the next dog I get (even a basset) will be a demon dog from hell who will bark continuously and destroy everything in sight.
          It’s sort of like weighing the decision as to whether or not you want to reenter the dating scene after you’ve been widowed. Especially if you had a very long and happy marriage.

        33. Ellsworth Moncton Toohey is probably named for the wonderful Canadian Navy defense vessel we encountered last February as they were endeavoring to protect the fine people of Cozumel from…..

        34. —–Hey Geezus!
          It appears my reply to you from several days ago was “detected as spam” for some reason. I’ll repost it here. I hope you had a great holiday weekend! Here goes:—–
          Yes. There seems to be a default number of characters allowed for Disqus forums. Anything over that limit is usually seen as spam. Any day off is a good day. Then again, a good day’s work has its own rewards.
          *****
          —–You make some good points. After seeing some of your earlier posts about this here, I think it actually may be more appropriate to continue this discussion outside LAN. I’m referring to some of your comments about me, which I think may be more appropriately discussed outside LAN, since I would like to avoid appearances of using my position to further my own opinion or protect myself.—–
          Well, yes, most people seem to think I make good points. Even “Jim H” and “Phineas” show, by their retreat to evasion that they too are aware of how relatively good my points are.
          *****
          —–I’ll address that first. Let me begin by saying I am not offended by your opinion of me or my moderation.—-
          There was no intent to offend, as the statements are based and built on factual record.
          It should be noted that women are far more concerned about “feelings” than men are, and in cases will advocate the suppression of comments to spare someone’s emotions. These “inconvenient truths” are rarely (if ever) withheld by me. The truth is at times painful to some, but sensitivities are not a mitigation for half-truths, lies or silence.
          *****
          —–I have myself been frustrated with moderators on at least two occasions I can remember. I also believe that you should be free to express how you feel about this.—-
          This implies that I have been, and/or am currently frustrated with moderation at LAN. This is not so, and there is really no cause to assume that. It is a default that all have the freedom to express their thoughts (and even “feelings”) on a matter. However, none should speciously confuse that with promoting falsehood, and knowingly promoting it after such fabrications have been exposed (more on this in a moment).
          *****
          —–In addition, yes, I can see how my comment to you and Phineas could have been perceived as me taking sides. If I were approaching the same situation again, I would likely word my comment differently, although I would still keep the same main point, which I will explain later.—-
          Well, this is where your actions being to show a disingenuous agenda.
          It was not so much the content (as in the “words”) there was the issue, as it was who you elected to directly message, and who you did not. If you intended to be “fair” you would have addressed the same message to both parties. An “extra” copy of the message would ruin the flow of the thread (consider too that one-sided deletions tend to actually make parts of thread difficult to follow).
          Note too that sock puppeteers often neglect to message their sock puppets. If those sock puppets disappear completely (along with their history) it often means the puppeteer will take up the agenda on their own (and cover his/her tracks by removing the sock puppet). All of this happened. While there can be other “explanations”, Occam’s Razor would point favor the “sock puppet” scenario.
          All that aside, it should have been clear even to the most cursory viewer (let alone a moderator) that it was I that was being harassed by “Jim H” and “Phineas”.
          *****
          —–That being said, I think that’s a good tie-in to the rest of our discussion. Would you agree that incorrectly naming someone a liar or a sock puppet diminishes your credibility in a discussion, at least to the commenter and to those who know him or her?—–
          That is what is called a presumptuous question. It is quite noticeable that you have used the modifier of incorrectly and essentially assumed that such false allegations were made. This is —UNTRUE—.
          Essentially, you have deliberately ignored how any instance where it was said that “Jim H” was lying was backed up with a transparent exhibit of where that happened. There was nothing “incorrect” about it, and, most reasonable people would see that they were accurate assessments. Speaking of credibility, just how is one’s credibility not damaged by starting off with this type of misleading argument?
          As far as my credibility in making that determination? Well, it was backed up, and the subsequent evasion by “Jim H” (via deflective arguments or Argumentum ad Hominem as “he” usually resorts to) adds a lot of credence to what I wrote. You can oppose that if you wish, but without any corroborating evidence or reasonable argument, you are merely choosing to be contrary.
          *****
          —–I believe you are much more convincing, both to your opposition and to observers, when you avoid such things.—–
          This conveniently neglects to mention the actions of the opposition. One can only avoid mentioning the employment of falsehood, half-truths, deflections, etc… so much in any given discussion. If that were not so, one could merely “make things up”, and apply a refutation to that “made up” position. It’s similar to making up that that a statement was “incorrect” and asking the rhetorical that it is wrong to make incorrect statements. See how that works?
          “Jim H”, and most social justice warriors, employ this type of “say nothing about my dishonesty because it cheapens your argument” excuse all the time in attempts to discourage criticism. What? Like no one is allowed to say that the Emperor is naked? If “Jim H” or anyone else resorts to repeatedly telling lies in a discussion, it will be pointed out. Exposing people for misinforming (and especially continuing to do so after the lie has been exposed) does not make one “less convincing”. It is just helping dishonest people destroy their reputation. That is all.
          We always address the argument first, but if the opposition resorts to underhanded methods (like repeating the same lie) then the credibility of that party will scrutinized. That is how any discussion needs to work. If not, all one has to do to promote a falsehood is to run around in circles with the same misinformation. That is what propagandists like “Jim H” do.
          *****
          —–Your above comment to me is a great example of how you are capable of laying out a position without relying on personally discrediting the opposition. You stated your position, and explained your reasoning. While I do not agree with everything you said, you make a strong case. On the other hand, when you make the same points accompanied by a host of personal accusations, do you think your arguments come across as strong?——
          While a participant is capable conveying a point without discrediting the opposition, a point can become obfuscated when one is not allowed to expose fallacious positions (and if repeated, an agenda to present fallacious positions to create confusion or incorrect consensus). That is the flaw in your logic.
          The simple illustration of deciding what is the correct answer to 2+2 was used in my argument against “not exposing habitual liars”. As it was said, purveyors of falsehoods, are happy to comprise on 3.5 when the repeatedly say 2+2=3. Remember, in your utopia, no one can say that the opposition is repeating demonstratively false positions, hence people have to see it as 2+2=3.5 … or … we “just don’t know”. If you cannot see how this illustrates why you are wrong here, you are either very naïve or just being disingenuous.
          Whether an argument for 2+2=4 is immediately compelling is not the issue. The issue is this: Allowing people to keep repeating that 2+2=3 without letting the wider viewership see that it is just a campaign of confusion is just ridiculous. Don’t even try to hold the argument of the plaintiff’s credibility for ransom.
          *****
          —–Or would you agree that they may be perceived as grasping for straws, at least by the commenter who knows your accusation to be incorrect, and probably to some observers as well? Would you agree with my point here? Or do you believe such accusations truly further your cause,—–
          That would be a “false dichotomy” there “Dannius”.
          Those are not the only two outcomes. The far more likely case, especially when corroborated by the expected righteous indignation is that the assessment of —DISHONESTY— is accurate. As such the commenter agrees and betrays that concurrence by his/her reaction (no proof in the contrary, and the expected Argumentum ad hominem or parroting).
          Does pointing out specious arguments and dishonest behavior in one’s opposition help one’s argument? If you don’t see that as a resounding —YES—, well you know the drill (rhymes with, “this in genie us”)
          *****
          —–even when false?—–
          Lol. Not once has “Jim H” or “Phineas” even attempted to show that the deduction (that they are —DISHONEST— individuals bent on trying to present misinformation) was “false”. There is no reason to agree that a false accusation could damage credibility, when, no such thing has occurred. I challenge you to demonstrate where I have been even hasty in making the claims that I have.
          *****
          —–I suppose the answer to that question may relate to the answer to this question: what is your endgame in discussions at LAN? Are you debating to persuade?—–
          Well, I’ve stated and maintained my position on this on many occasions. I’ll repeat it just in case you really do not know.
          My arguments are there to inform those in the audience who are reasonable. Fundamentalists are generally resolute in their “beliefs” and even when they know they are wrong, will stubbornly hold onto their ideas. Part of their faith is that people are trying to convince them. No. No one cares if people like “Jim H” thinks if “he” doesn’t accept something then those they oppose have failed. The truth marches on and just leaves delusional individuals behind.
          ***** continued…

        35. …continued.
          —–Which group of people do you think will be persuaded to your side due to you discussing everyone you consider liars and sock puppets, and even who you think is a woman posing as a man, rather than discussing something substantive?—–
          Those who are evaluated to be habitual liars and/or sock puppets are exposed to the jury at large. The evidence is there for all to review and evaluate on their own. It is doubtful that many will come to a dissimilar conclusion.
          Again, you imply that identifying the dishonest of individuals (including that of masquerading as a man) is somehow —not— substantive. That is —disingenuous—. The reliability of the purveyor is fundamental to the veracity of their conveyance and the credibility of their arguments. In “fact” that is why “Phineas” tried to dismiss any criticism to that end. It is actually why you are attempting to do it right now. In any other forum, “Jim H”’s behavior would have resulted in a banning within days (if not hours) of him infesting the site with his propaganda. For anyone to defend “his” immature ranting and mud-slinging is ridiculous and really, casts a dim light on the agenda of those who do. Seriously, “Dannius” it is obvious that “Jim H” is just a social justice troll.
          Yes, it is usually quite easy to tell when a woman is posing as a man Online. The emphasis on trying to “hurt the feelings” of anyone they feel slighted by is tell-tale. Even when this is exposed, most women are unable to avoid that urge to “cut you”. They will do it even if it means they destroy their reputation as someone dedicated to seeking out the truth.
          It is just laughable sometimes to see how they try to act all “tough” but immediately resort to “you have a small penis” as soon as they are challenged.
          *****
          —–Sorry, that’s a whole lot of questions. 🙂—–
          It is never the volume of questions, but the quality of them that reflects on the questioner.
          *****
          —–As a side note, I also came across your opinion of my screen name, and while I do understand that Awesomus may appear to be arrogant, it is intended to be a joke, not a brag. I hope that you will understand that, since your screen name appears to sound very similar to a certain holy religious figure.—–
          Well, I really have a whole lot of meat framed by a sweet bun, so the namesake is homage to the reaction I usually get. I refuse to ride a wooden T for the sins of mere mortals (who should know better). So, there is no relation or intended allusion to deities past, present or resurrected.
          *****
          —–Alright, jokes aside. In all seriousness, on LAN, I do not at all wish to be authoritarian, but I am required to enforce the standards given to me by my boss. When I discovered today the extent of this entire situation, both on LAN and here, I ran it by my boss. I confirmed that, in situations where conversation is centered on personal attacks and accusations, I am encouraged to promote a shift in topic, and delete if necessary.—–
          LAN, like any forum site has its own agenda and can enforce it anyway they wish. They are also judged by what they allow and not allow and how fairly they apply that. There is no way anyone cannot see that “Jim H” is dedicated to promoting “his” narrative and defending that with whatever underhanded method he can get away with. In that process, he will openly apply personal attacks as well as the expected passive aggressive insults of the typical social justice warrior.
          In reality, the demonstration of how posters like “Jim H” behave is absolutely “on topic” in any given discussion. For this to be effectively curtailed, it is trolls like “him” that need to stay in line. Giving “Jim H” the right to insult and attack people, and then to repeat lies even when they have been refuted reflects poorly on any site that does it. As an example, you don’t see a lot points of views outside of what XOJane promotes on XOJane. Is it any surprise that they basically allow their advocates to attack people, but even a single word that “hurts the feelings” of one of them results in a ban? (P.S. I’m not banned, but I don’t even go there).
          *****
          —–I understand your perspective on dishonest content, but it is not my job to censor information I do not agree with. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your post seemed to imply that I should delete comments from people who post “false” information, which is censorship.—–
          No. In respects to censorship, you are, actually, wrong.
          The spirit of “freedom of speech” should not and really does not protect the agenda to promote lies, especially within the arena of a discussion forum. It is not censorship to remove libel, and it is not censorship to remove false information if it is masquerading as truthful material (like 2+2=5). If one cannot provide some foundation for a given opinion, and if opposing views are substantially supported, repetition of said opinion is essentially, “Argumentum ad Nauseam”.
          It’s a matter of credibility for the site as much as it is for the participants. If one were visiting a site on designer clothing, should a poster be allowed to repeatedly say that brand A is actually brand B when it has been shown that it is not true? Not only that, when that poster is challenged on proof, “he” just resorts to name-calling and insulting. When someone defends themselves, that poster then pulls the “mod” alarm and plays victim? Seriously, Dannius, you don’t see a problem with allowing misinformation to infest a discussion forum?
          *****
          —–Surely, there are those who post nothing but profanity and insults: true trolls, and they are banned. I know you will disagree with this, and I respect that, but honestly that is not what I see from Jim or Phineas. I have seen them both begin conversations in a decent way, and be met with personal accusations and insults.—–
          Trolls have many ways to ply their trade. Keeping to only insults and profanity is just one of the ways to discourage posters (and “Jim H” is not as far removed from that method as you suggest).
          “Jim H” is a propagandist. It is all about creating false beliefs and defending that false belief by whatever method is allowed in a given forum. We’ve seen this type try to infiltrate ROK. Most are quickly exposed and eventually banned from participation.
          My interaction with “Jim H” shows “him” to be nothing but a childish and hateful individual who believes that insulting people is a valid form of discussion. When challenged on “his” narrative he resorts to evasive action. You can pretend that because “he” didn’t fill up the screen with pejorative, then “he” is not a troll, but his behavior would have “him” banned from most sites I’ve been to.
          “Phineas”? Consider how that pseudo-intellectual quickly disappeared once exposed as nothing but a fraud. These sock-puppets are obvious and their hubris is easily their destruction if posters like myself are given the allowance to debate them. It really helps my “end game”. “Phineas” refused to debate me here. That is probably in large part due to “his” inability to get “mod” assistance when faced with irrefutable argument.
          *****
          —–This is not me taking sides, it is me doing my job per the standards given to me by my boss. It is my job to promote civil and relevant conversation at LAN, and I believe that through that, the truth will come out without the need for personal insults.—–
          Well, its looks more like someone trying to rationalize their decisions. If you really want to promote civil debate you’d not have the likes of “Jim H” even within 500 yards of LAN. It really doesn’t matter to me, though, I got my point across, and, I challenge any social justice warrior to debate me on that, here, there or anywhere (as long as I am not unfairly handcuffed or handicapped).
          The truth? The truth is obscured if those who want to present lies and half-truths are allowed to do it without any penalty. What you pretend is censorship is actually responsible governance. It is one thing to allow people to post anything they wish within guidelines of respectful interaction (and there is no way anyone can truthfully say that “Jim H” is not contemptuous of anyone that opposes “his” view). It is another to allow people to constantly post lies even immediately after they have been refuted. It is not “censorship” to disallow propaganda (and don’t even try to say that that is subjective — it is not as allegations are always supported by evidence and reasoning).
          Personal Insult? Resolving that individuals are telling lies, and that they are doing so in deliberate ignorance of refutation is not “personal insult”. You removed a post where I answered “Jim H” talking about “feelings”. I said “No one cares about your feelings”. That gets deleted while “Jim H” plethora of comments about things like alleged erectile dysfunction remains? To pretend you are being fair, and not being a sycophant of “Jim H” is the insulting thing. Seriously, “Dannius” you are not fooling anyone.
          *****
          —–Based on some comments I have seen from you, I know you are capable of debating relevant issues free of personal attacks, and I hope you will do so at LAN.—–
          I have not “attacked” anyone on LAN. Please do not misconstrue either my defense against unsolicited attack, or the demonstration of —DISHONEST— argument as “attacking” someone.
          The relevant issue on that thread is the exposure of how “Jim H” defends “his” narrative by resorting to personal attack. It would be reasonable to ask those opposed to him to ignore that, if you, as the moderator removed his assaults. However, more often than not, you allow his battery while deleting the equal response. Furthermore, you now hide behind the specter of “censorship” to justify your deletion of posts that identify the repeated falsehoods employed by “Jim H”.
          You are not fooling anyone, Dannius. It was clear that there was some collusion between “Jim H”, “Phineas” and yourself the moment the telltale “pseudo-intellectual” defense-for-Jim of “Phineas” was followed by “a message from the moderator” when the “intellectual” got cornered. You are now responding after the “intellectual” has gone ghost. Some of us have seen this routine before.
          The most telling detail is that you have not been able to demonstrate your actions as that of a reasonable and neutral official. If anything, you have now given more proof that you are allowing your “feelings” on an issue influence your moderation of a forum. That has basically sullied LAN as forums with agendas lose much credibility.
          *****
          —–Thank you for your time.—–
          A valiant effort, Dannius, but as you can see, I will cut through hollow speech mercilessly. You are welcome for trying, but there is no defense for the clearly biased adjudication we have seen. Frustrated with it? No. Disappointed? Yes.

        36. Thanks for the reply. I’m disappointed to see the extent of your frustration. While there is much in your post related to women, me, and other topics that I would love to address, I will keep this relatively brief and relevant.
          As has been the case with commenters who take issue with our moderation on both sides, we will offer you the same reply: There is no unfair standard in moderation at LAN; the standard is quite clear and is applied to all sides of debates. Abusive comments are deleted on both sides, and the record reflects that. If you notice any specific abusive comments that have been overlooked, flag them or otherwise point them out. I appreciate that you pointed out a comment from Jim about erectile dysfunction, and I am currently searching for it.
          “A valiant effort, Dannius, but as you can see, I will cut through hollow speech mercilessly.”
          Well, you are of course welcome to consider your own arguments convincing. I don’t see any hollow speech though, at least from me, and I don’t see much cutting through here on your part. You may be mistaking hollow for relevant and simple, and cutting through for lengthy rebuttals which are honestly lacking in substance. You have convinced yourself that you can correctly identify a woman posing as a man online or a sock puppet, and more importantly that it is your duty to mankind to call them out. However, you haven’t really offered much evidence other than your own reasoning.
          I completely disagree about censorship. Your suggestions for deleting “wrong” information sound, quite honestly, very authoritarian to me, something I’d hear if I were moderating for the Chinese government. Why would I delete a comment that states “2+2=5?” The commenter clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about, and will discredit his own viewpoint. You seem to think the internet and the world would be better off either with me deleting that comment, or by you jumping in and telling the commenter that they are a liar and a sock puppet and a woman. That’s where we completely disagree. Despite what you think, such personal attacks and arguments only serve to turn people away from your viewpoint, except of course in the case of equally hostile commenters who already share your views.
          Although I’d love to continue this, I’m not here to argue with your opinion of women – which I find to be rather sexist by the way – or your opinion of Jim or Phineas, or your opinion of me. I am happy to hear you out, and I did so. Your concerns have been noted. As I said, I made my boss aware of the situation and he confirmed how I should deal with it.
          Abusive comments will continue to be deleted on both sides. Discussions centering around nothing more than who is secretly a woman or a sock puppet or a liar will be dealt with appropriately.
          Thank you for your input.

        37. —–Thanks for the reply. I’m disappointed to see the extent of your frustration.—–
          Although I just said, “I am not frustrated” (and demonstrate that I am not), you immediately pretend that I am. This betrays the desire that your opposition is hurt (as “frustration” is a permutation of that) to the point you have to bend the truth to fit your “feelings”. That is a quite the female trait by the way (more on this in a moment).
          *****
          —–While there is much in your post related to women, me, and other topics that I would love to address, I will keep this relatively brief and relevant.—–
          ROTFL. Seriously? There is “much” in my post related to women, you and other topics?
          Firstly, there is little related to “women”. There are just a few notes on how it is easy to detect women masquerading as men online. Secondly, a response to you can and will contain elements pertaining to your behavior. That you are proving to be just as disingenuous as those you defend makes commentary on your actions and motives very relevant. Thirdly, just what “other” topics are you seeing as not focused on the discussion at hand?
          Hollow accusations are typical of social justice warriors like you. Essentially you state “opinions” but curiously never back it up with any reference. It took, what, just a couple of posts to reveal that you are as —DISHONEST— as the trolls you defend?
          *****
          —–As has been the case with commenters who take issue with our moderation on both sides, we will offer you the same reply: There is no unfair standard in moderation at LAN; the standard is quite clear and is applied to all sides of debates.—–
          Oh, of course, —chuckle—, the “appeal to authority”.
          The self-righteous seem to think that “declaring” that there is “no unfair standard of moderation” somehow removes any supported complaint that that has been. Sure, “the emperor is wearing cloths”. Lol. Any reasonable person witnessing any exchange “Jim H” has had with anyone that “he” perceives as opposing “his” commentary (not just myself) will see that your “moderation” is quite one-sided. Stop pretending that no one can see it. You aren’t even fooling yourself.
          *****
          —–Abusive comments are deleted on both sides, and the record reflects that. If you notice any specific abusive comments that have been overlooked, flag them or otherwise point them out. I appreciate that you pointed out a comment from Jim about erectile dysfunction, and I am currently searching for it.—–
          Oh please, “Dannius”. You are just paying lip service.
          You know well enough that “Jim H” will couch derogatory comments in innuendo and double entendre. That way you will not “find” the exact term of “erectile dysfunction” and claim that you looked and found nothing to remove.
          Again, the passive aggressive approach that “Jim H” uses typifies women tend to attack the person rather than the topic. You can pretend that you can’t see that all you want, but your charade only destroys your reputation (both as a moderator and as someone actually dedicated to honest debate).
          *****
          —–[Geezus:]”A valiant effort, Dannius, but as you can see, I will cut through hollow speech mercilessly.”
          Well, you are of course welcome to consider your own arguments convincing. I don’t see any hollow speech though, and I don’t see much cutting through here. You may be mistaking hollow for relevant and simple, and cutting through for lengthy rebuttals which are honestly lacking in substance.—–
          Lol! This is the expected childish “nuh-uh” response of the social justice warrior.
          Basically, all you do is say, “that’s just your opinion, and my opinion is the opposite”. However, like usual, you provide —ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT— for your allegation (and I do since it is a summary of my refutation of your post) and think that it is “equal and opposite”.
          Say, that is —EXACTLY— the fallacy of “Phineas” when “he” tried to promote the concept of “agree to disagree”. Social justice warriors seem to think that just disagreeing makes their opinion just as substantial. It does not. Really, you need to provide better rebuttal than “No, it’s not!”
          *****
          —–You have convinced yourself you can correctly identify a woman posing as a man online or a sock puppet, and that’s of course within your rights. However, you haven’t really offered much evidence other than your own reasoning.—–
          No. Judging by the upvotes here and by my growing follower list, it is not merely myself I have convinced. In fact, it is that my arguments are convincing that you seem passionate in trying to discredit them (but doing a really bad job at it via the expected fallacious arguments).
          “Right” to have a reasoned opinion? Most people recognize and exercise that right all the time. Is there need for you to tell me that?
          Speaking of rights… what you are doing there is applying the fallacy of an “appeal to ignorance”. It is unlikely that one can effectively transmit irrefutable “evidence” that any given poster is a man or woman since privacy is an actual “right”. However, my reasoning was given along with the reference to the evidence that supports that reasoning. Unless you can provide some form of counterpoint with equal reasoning and reference, you are just saying “Nuh-Uh!” again.
          There is doubt that you can provide anything resembling a refutation.
          *****
          —–I completely disagree about censorship. Your suggestions for deleting “wrong” information sound, quite honestly, very authoritarian to me, something I’d hear if I were moderating for the Chinese government.—–
          Lol. It is predictable that you would “disagree”. However, it isn’t whether you agree or not that matters. It is whether or not your reasoning is sound. We will show everyone that it isn’t.
          *****
          —–Why would I delete a comment that states “2+2=5?” The commenter clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about, and will discredit his own viewpoint. You seem to think the internet and the world would be better off either with me deleting that comment, or by you jumping in and telling the commenter that they are a liar and a sock puppet and a woman.—–
          You employ two typical fallacies here in your attempt at a refutation.
          The first is that of the straw man argument. What I said, in context, was that repeated falsehoods, especially those that are posted immediately after a being shown as false is Argumentum ad Nauseam. That is propaganda, and should be removed from any discussion forum that wants to at least appear as not promoting an agenda. You basically misrepresented my case (by falsely stating that I was suggesting that bad viewpoints should be immediately removed) to create a rebuttal (usually, couched in feigned indignation too).
          The second is that of taking the example out of context. Clearly most people can see that 2+2=5 is incorrect. But that isn’t the point (and you know it). The point is that false conclusions are often difficult to detect to those unfamiliar with a subject matter. That is why repeatedly posting lies is a way to promote false beliefs. That is why Argumentum ad Nauseam should be removed.
          That “Jim H” is both a habitual liar and a sock puppeteer is —CRITICAL— to the reputation of the conveyor and therefore to the credibility of “his” argument. Again, deliberate falsehood is allowed, those uninitiated to math can and will start to believe that 2+2=4.5, or that we “just don’t know”. If you continue to pretend to not get this, your reputation will be surrendered as surely as “Jim H”’s was.
          Again, I didn’t just “jump in” and make some wild allegation that “Jim H” was a liar and a fraud. That determination was built over time. “He” was given the rope and “he” hung himself. Stop trying to “shoot the messenger”.
          *****…continued

        38. continued…
          —–That’s where we completely disagree. Despite what you think, such personal attacks and arguments only serve to turn people away from your viewpoint, except of course in the case of equally hostile commenters who already share your views.—–
          Nice try, but most people can see the subterfuge you are using there.
          Despite what you immediately and authoritatively deem as “personal attack”, delivering a supported case that a poster is deliberately telling lies is not Argumentum ad Hominem. You have already had this explained to you and by ignoring that explanation to restate the same false accusation (that it was, “personal attack”) is … drum roll … —DISHONEST—.
          Specifically, “Jim H” resorts to personal insults and name-calling when “he” is confronted with either a challenge to defend “his” point, or when “he” detects opposition to “his” narrative. THAT is NOT personal attack. That is the truth based on the record of “Jim H”.
          Does that “turn people away” from my viewpoint? No. Even you do not believe such a thing. That is proven by how you deleted a post of mine to “Phineas”. Certainly you used the excuse that it was “not on topic”, but it was clearly “on topic”. You removed it because “Phineas” was losing the argument and the “pseudo-intellectual” sock puppet loses all credibility when that happens.
          Other “hostile commenters”? No. Those that upvote me are quite open to genuine and earnest dialogue that seeks the truth of a matter. In contrast, few people are open to the antagonistic and immature rants of “Jim H”, “Phineas” and anyone else that is sympathetic to their “feelings”.
          *****
          —–Although I’d love to continue this, I’m not here to argue with your opinion of women – which I find to be rather sexist by the way – or your opinion of Jim or Phineas, or your opinion of me. I am happy to hear you out, and I did so. Your concerns have been noted. As I said, I made my boss aware of the situation and he confirmed how I should deal with it.—–
          Well, it is you that wanted to expand on this in the first place. However, the wager was your reputation and it seems that you have lost that (pretend all you want that you have not, but most will see that you are just trying to rationalize your sycophancy).
          Opinion on women? Where have I related that? Don’t mistake my statement that women are far more prone to trying to emotionally injure an opponent in an Online discussion than men are, as “opinion on women”. Unless you can demonstrate that the sexes are, as a whole, functionally the same in that respect (strong hint: they are —NOT—) then your allegation of “sexist” is unfounded. Incidentally, women often label anything that shows women to be relatively less than men in some specific attribute as “sexist”. Women are as a group, generally more emotionally charged. Since when has stating the truth about something, “sexist”?
          My “opinion” of “Jim H” is more than just a mere opinion. It is an informed one based on a more-than-adequate amount of information. My “opinion” of you now has a similar amount of evidence. I’m certain that most will agree with it.
          These comments didn’t actually need specifically “your” audience. This was broadcast here so that any interested party can witness how Internet bullies operate and how it can and will include those who we often think are “neutral”.
          If your boss was aware of the real situation, I have doubts that you would be retaining your “moderator” status. However, if they advocate your services as is, then it reflects poorly on their standards. I don’t lose anything. It’s LAN and your reputation that is at stake.
          *****
          —–Abusive comments will continue to be deleted on both sides. Discussions centering around nothing more than who is secretly a woman or a sock puppet or a liar will be dealt with appropriately.
          Thank you for your input.—–
          You say that as if I really care one way or the other.
          Again, it is the credibility and reputation of LAN and yourself that is wagered when you play this game of sycophancy, Dannius. The reason that the Republican Candidate is who it is is in part due to how people are tired of the bullying and dishonest methods of the social justice warrior crowd.
          Do whatever you want. It’s not my credibility that is destroyed. “Jim H” will be known has the troll that “he” is. “Phineas” will be known as the false intellectual that “he” was (he’s gone ghost). You? Well, who is going to trust a moderator that allows propagandists to infect a site? Apparently Live Action News.

        39. Notice how Dannius focuses on anything you said about “women”. He is a She and a butt-hurt one at that. There little worse than a SWJ that is a moderator.

        40. Dannius is just another one of those Arts Degree half-educated types that thinks she can actually out-debate people. She got PWND, and is just trying to save face. What a loser.

        41. Dannius Pompous-ass is the worst excuse-of-a-mod evuhhhhhh!
          xD XD XD

        42. @ Dannius Awesomus
          I do not control the filters on ROK, but it does seem that your ranting (and it is ranting when you deliberately ignore salient points to repeat the same old unsupported false accusations) has caught the notice of the moderators at ROK. If your posts are being removed as SPAM, it is likely that they, like most reasonable people, see it that way.
          In essence, you are a fraud like most social justice warriors. You see your narrative, and —ONLY— your narrative to the point that anything that refutes your position is to be suppressed via underhanded methods if necessary. I have been VERY patient in showing you how each one of your concepts are wrong, and, if seen, disingenuously wrong. It escapes no reasonable person that you employ deceitful practice in both your arguments and your moderation. You have effectively destroyed your reputation in your foolish attempt to “win” this confrontation.
          I could offer you another forum where you can attempt to “win” this discussion, but from what I have seen, all you do is evade what you cannot refute, and follow that up with unsubstantiated false accusations. It takes a lot to get blacklisted on ROK, and apparently you have achieved it within days. It is doubtful you are really after the truth. It is more likely that you are seeking to promote your concepts and your concepts only.
          It is a —SAD ALLEGORY— of the state of both the educational system and Live Action News that you are entrusted with moderation of a forum. This is a large part of why the current GOP candidate has been so successful. People are tired of the self-righteous and entitled attitude of Millennial flakes.
          (here is your deleted post and answers to it….)
          PART I of III
          —–Okay Geezus.
          I’ll let your comments here stand as full and complete evidence of your sexism and unwillingness to see past your own perspective and/or engage in civil debate free of senseless personal attacks. I don’t even have to refute them, they speak for themselves.—–
          Lol. You’ll let my comments stand? What? Like you have some authority to not let them stand here? Well, that certainly is a lot of hubris.
          Evidence of “sexism”? Please explain to the wider audience how, seeing that women are generally far more emotional (and emotional to the point that they will pay no attention to logical arguments in their agenda to “injure via insult”) than men are, is “sexist”. I challenge you. Right here. Come on. Tell us all.
          Unwillingness to see past my own perspective? Seriously? You spit out accusations without even a shred of evidence or reasoning (yes, not even a tiny bit of corroborating evidence) and you expect others to see things outside of what they carefully deducted? You are sounding a lot like “Phineas” with the “trust me” excuse. In fact, it is curious how both you and “he” state that “Jim H” has a history as an upstanding netizen, yet provide not a single link… meanwhile I could find links to other discussions where he was unsurprisingly just as hostile to those that opposed “his” view.
          Senseless personal attack? I’ve already explained how your accusations of that are unfounded and really just an excuse to be righteousness indignant.
          You don’t have to refute them? No. You —CAN’T— support your accusations. Its been shown time and time again. You’re a complete fraud, Dannius. Keep going, your reputation is near zero.
          *****
          —–I would agree with you that general observations about the tendencies of women vs. men are not inherently sexist; the sexism comes in how you choose to apply them. Commenters who you perceive as relying on emotional reasoning receive the “woman” label from you, and that is sexist. I know plenty of women who are very intellectual and plenty of men who are emotional.—–
          Nice try. To deduce that a poster is masquerading as a man from how they resort to trying to injure via insult (and the type of insult) is hardly “sexist”. Is any given woman more emotionally triggered than any given man? Well, depending on the topic (and natal issues are one of those topics) women are definitely and demonstratively more volatile than men.
          Commenters who I “perceive” as relying on emotion? No, most people would perceive “Jim H”’s quickness to start flinging the monkey poo as relying on emotion. It was quite easy to get Phineas to do the same once it “he” got into trouble with “his” pseudo-intellectual attempts.
          You may “know” many women who are “intellectual” but that still doesn’t mean that these “intellectuals” won’t degenerate to emotionally charged attacks when they “feel” slighted (“Phineas” is an example of that, as are you at this stage). You may “know” many men who are emotional, but I know of few who forgo the logical contest and instead resort to childish insults. Trying to “hurt” the opponent with insults rather than achieve victory on the logical contest is hardly what “men” do. Then again, those who really are not men just can’t seem to understand that.
          Hint: NAWALT is not an excuse to pretend something is “sexist” when it isn’t.
          *****
          —–Perhaps you should get out more.—–
          Ah, of course, the passive aggressive personal insult… and you really think that people don’t see that you are a hurt “woman”? You certainly are behaving like one. (Have you noticed that I haven’t insulted you back?… unless you think that being a “woman” or a “hurt woman” is an insult.)
          *****
          —–Your stereotypes may be true in some cases but are frequently false. I was offering the chance for you to be reasonable and admit that you may be wrong on some of your wild and baseless allegations, but I have yet to see that.—–
          Lol. I of all people, would like to be wrong about how women usually (if not always) degenerate into trying to injure via personal insult (you know, like saying, “perhaps you should get out more”) when they are “hurt” by a certain truth.
          However, far more frequently than not, women think “winning” is hurting the opposition rather than creating a solid argument. You are an example of that in how you claim I make “wild and baseless allegations”, yet have not indicated in any way how I have. This current attempt has just been refuted too. Let me guess, you will try yet another false accusation along with a passive aggressive insult and consider that “winning”.
          *****
          —–You are completely wrong about Jim, Phineas, women, and me. My moderation records, which unfortunately for you are not public record, clearly show that comments are deleted fairly and reasonably.—–
          No. Not even a nice try.
          “Jim H” behaves exactly like the standard angry social justice warrior woman that thinks calling people names and insulting their manhood is a valid approach to defending her ideas. Anyone and everyone can witness her hostility and contempt for any that challenge her. No one has to take anyone else’s word for it: it is that easy to see for themselves.
          “Phineas” was clearly trying to play the “intellectual” and attempted to defend “Jim H” with feigned civility. That was quickly stripped away. You deleted my last post to “him” on your site, so I reposted it here for all to see. That effectively showed how biased you were and how your excuses are false.
          You? You come here curiously after Phineas deleted all traces of “himself”. There are far to many coincidences happening there, Dannius. I’m sure you will try the “you are paranoid” gambit, but most can see the dishonest campaign you are clearly part of.
          ***** …Continued

        43. PART II of III
          —–You may claim whatever you wish, but it’s kind of funny to me that you are the one whining when you had exactly one of your comments deleted,—–
          Wow, you really are dishonest aren’t you?
          Of all things to lie about, it is difficult for you to lie about how many of my posts were deleted from your site (I’m sure you will now say it was another moderator that deleted the other ones, lol). I can see exactly which posts of mine are removed in my own history. You should be aware of that. I’ve already given you an example of the innocuous post you deleted (as if, “No one cares about your feelings” posted to “Jim H” violates anything but your sycophant’s “feelings” … and “hurt feelings” are not a cause for deletion on most forums). You’re just as much a —LIAR— as those sock puppets you protect.
          “Whining”? Who is whining? I neither complained to you about “Jim H”’s Argumentum ad Hominem, nor did I initiate a complaint TO YOU about your dubious delete reasons. I show people how biased moderators like you operate. There’s no “whining” about it. YOU CAME HERE on your own volition. If anyone is whining, it is you. Stop projecting your emotional response. Really, Dannius, you social justice warriors are pathetic.
          *****
          —–…while Jim is willing to work within the moderation standards after having several comments deleted. You’re kind of hurting your own cause by your words here, continuing to demonstrate why your comment was deleted.—–
          Oh please. It was already explained to you why “Jim H” will work with moderators, so you are just rehashing something that has already been covered.
          Hurting my “own cause”? How? I also already explained that I need only demonstrate that those who censor comments because some sock puppet was losing an argument (and how you interrupted to post to me, but not to Phineas) to support my case that your moderation is biased. I’m not “continuing” to demonstrate that because I already have. You are the one who is trying to evade it (and, really entangling yourself deeper in your lies).
          *****
          —–Your comment to Phineas was deleted not just because it was off-topic, but because you choose to do nothing but accuse others of dishonesty and sock puppetry rather than contributing anything real or relevant, which you continue to prove even in this discussion.—–
          No. That is as wrong as it always was, Dannius.
          Firstly, your excuse is wrong because if you were really deleting posts for being “off topic” you would have also deleted Phineas’ posts in the same conversation. The FACT is that you did not. You chose to only remove mine.
          Secondly, I did far more than “accuse others of dishonesty and sock puppetry”. I provided much evidence and reasoning. Typically, you are repeating your false reasons to justify your indignant stance.
          Thirdly, it has been explained to you on SEVERAL occasions why showing the dishonesty of detractors is CRITICAL to a discussion. You simply choose to be ignorant of those explanations (or at most, just say “nuh-uh” as if that is a valid refutation).
          Really, Dannius. The more you try these typical evasive manoeuvres the more you prove that you are aiding and abetting trolls on your site.
          *****
          —–I thought based on a select few of your comments that you had more to offer to reasonable conversations; perhaps I was wrong.—-
          Of course, the “plea to emotion”… I was wondering when you would try that one.
          Clearly I have much to offer towards identifying trolls and frauds. I’ve basically outed “Jim H”, “Phineas” and as a special treat, Dannius the “helper of social justice warrior trolls”. You didn’t have to “speak up” for Phineas, but that you did, and said suspiciously the same unsubstantiated things “he” said was the first clue that you would eventually prove to be a troll disguised as a moderator.
          *****
          —–You assert absurd claims yet feel the need to call “logical fallacy” on just about every reasonable response to your comments. This is more the stuff of political ads than it is of reasonable discussion or debate.—–
          Lol. Your arguments are getting weaker by the sentence, Dannius.
          You suggest my claims are “absurd” yet provide no particular explanation as to why you assert that. That is the typical baseless accusation of social justice warriors that know they have no counterpoint.
          You suggest that I “feel the need” (there goes your projection of “emotional” responses again) to call “logical fallacies”, yet conveniently ignore how I explain, in detail, each instance where you, or others, have applied these logical fallacies. This is the typical deflective argument (yes, another fallacious method!) of someone that knows they are wrong.
          No. Political ads are the expensive versions of tweets. They are short, provide no supporting argument and are usually designed to play on emotions… you know, like the arguments you try all the time. My arguments are nearly always comprehensive and avoid “emotions” as much as possible (however, I do not have control of yours).
          *****
          —–Wow, playing the upvote card. That’s real classy.—–
          Wow, taking the context of why I mentioned upvotes out in order to denigrate. That’s really fallacious (notice how you insult my “classiness” but I only mention how your argument was wrong… take careful note of that, because everyone else can see it).
          The upvote was mentioned because you asserted that I was only convincing myself. That showed you were, again, incorrect (and basically lying). Now you try to take that comment out-of-context. I’ll let everyone else decide what was “classier”.
          *****
          —–I came here, not to defend my reputation,—–
          ”What we do in life, echoes in eternity”
          You may have come here thinking you would school one of those “sexist” heathens, but whether you recognize it or not, your reputation as both an authority and as a netizen is always under scrutiny.
          If you choose to apply specious arguments, and resort to passive aggressive personal attack (you know, like many of your comments here), then that doesn’t defend your reputation, it ends it.
          *****
          —–…but to engage in a civil and reasonnable discussion while hearing out your concerns, which apparently was a mistake. My reputation needs no defending. I am well aware that there will always be negative people who nitpick and cause trouble when things don’t go 100% their way. Even among those people, often I find that reasonable and civil discussion goes a long way in getting along. Clearly that is not the case here.—-
          Oh so great an honor of your audience has been bestowed upon me, but I recognize it not! Oh the ingratitude! Lol. Please, you came here thinking you were offering me some special audience, got in over your head and are resorting to the very same arrogant contempt for those you cannot refute that Phineas had.
          What concerns? I offered the comments here for all to see. I care little about how you operate your site. It should be obvious to you that I reach a following beyond what you control.
          Getting along? You talk down to people (yes, saying things like “while hearing out your concerns” is condescending at best) and feel that you are being congenial. You don’t have the intention to get along. It is more like you’ve been wanting to take the challenge levied at “Phineas” but would not until all traces of “Phineas” was first eliminated (in case I have privilege to see who you and Phineas really are.
          Sorry, Dannius, it is clear that you aren’t here to “get along”. You are here to try and “win” what you know you lost.
          *****
          —–[Geezus]”Any reasonable person witnessing any exchange ‘Jim H’ has had with anyone that ‘he’ perceives as opposing ‘his’ commentary (not just myself) will see that your ‘moderation’ is quite one-sided. Stop pretending that no one can see it. You aren’t even fooling yourself.”
          Absolute hogwash. Again, typical implied ad hominem sexist allegations followed by general and unproven statements.—–
          ROTFL. Here you go again with the same old, “I’ll say your argument is junk, but I’ll not explain why, and I’ll even accuse —YOU— of being the one that isn’t explaining his/her argument”.
          I always provide transparent and sufficient support for my arguments (to the point that people then accuse me of being too wordy). You replied to a response from me to “Jim H” on your LAN thread, which goes into the very detail that you falsely accuse me of not providing. Please. Dannius. That is why I label certain people as LIARS: It is because they LIE.
          So, “absolute hogwash”… No. False. Implied [Argumentum] ad Hominem? No. False. Sexist? No. It was already explained why it was not (and you have provided nothing resembling a refutation to that). Generalized statements? They are not panacea, but they are not intended to be. Unproven? That is the appeal to ignorance (and it has already been explained why you can’t apply it).
          Essentially, you are … drum roll… WRONG.
          ***** …Continued

        44. PART III of III
          —–This is, apparently, how you argue, and it’s to your own detriment. I asked for specifics.—–
          No. As the record on this very post of yours shows, you are projecting your method of “argument”. Please, Dannius. This type of dishonesty is easy to see on an Online discussion. You are really destroying your credibility.
          *****
          —–If you feel the moderation is unfair, flag or otherwise point out specific comments. Otherwise your allegations are nothing but your opinion, which has clearly been shown to be nothing but negative argumentation with nothing to add to a civil and relevant conversation.—–
          Shameful.
          I’ve already given you specifics, and one of the posts that you chose to delete (for reasons already explained to be spurious) is on this thread where you cannot remove it. All can see and judge for themselves (go figure… freedom of thought!) I also mentioned how you deleted a response to “Jim H” that said, “No one cares about your feelings, Jim”. If you deleted that without deleting “Jim H”’s post that precipitated it, you are clearly BIASED.
          Shameful. You are clearly not interested in real debate, and the favoritism you show “Jim H” is suspicious.
          *****
          —–Phineas and Jim have both attempted to engage in reasonable discussion and been met with personal accusation of lying, dishonesty, sock-puppetry, etc. rather than reasonable debate.—–
          Phineas made no such attempt at “engaging in reasonable discussion”. That is at best disingenuous but really just dishonest. Show me one instance, in context, where Phineas made such an effort. Really, Dannius, people are far more cognizant of trolls that you give them credit for.
          “Jim H”? Reasonable Debate? That is insulting to even the most naïve individual. “He” initiates numerous passive aggressive attacks and insults. Everyone can see that. Your credibility as a netizen, let alone capability to be a fair adjudicator is completely lost if you utter such an absolute falsehood.
          *****
          —–You’re demonstrating it right now in how you respond to me, so I’m not sure why you want to keep denying it or reframing it as if you are the victim of SJW aggression. The truth is pretty obvious.—–
          Sorry, Dannius, but you are again projecting the behavior of “Jim H” and “his” sycophants (or sock puppets) onto your opposition.
          What you call “denying” is simply what anyone would do with your typically hollow accusations. Really, Dannius, they are —HOLLOW—. That is because you repeatedly provide —NO EVIDENCE— or —REASONING—. All you do is say, “you are this” or “you are that”. Do you really think people do not see that as the argument of a hurt child?
          Victim? Seriously? No. It is social justice warriors that love to play “victim” or at the most “brave advocate of victims”. All I have done is point out that…
          Social justice warriors are usually quickly stripped of their feigned righteousness, and will just as rapidly resort to bullying and attempts to retailiate for being hurt by trying to “injure the feelings” of any perceived opposition.
          You have been so unable to accept that (much less argue against it) that you have to constantly try to deflect away from it. “Jim H” did the same thing via Argumentum ad Hominem, “Phineas” (Rest-in-Pieces) used a different method but practiced avoidance all the same.
          Yes, the truth is —OBVIOUS—. You are sympathetic to “Jim H” to the point that you will sacrifice your reputation in a vain attempt to defend via bullying.
          *****
          —–You seem to be absolutely shocked by the idea that more than one person would have the same problem with your comments.—–
          Really? Just where are you reading this “emotion” of “shocked” from? Come on. Where have I acted or demonstrated some “shock” or disbelief that more than one person would have a “problem” with my comments. In fact, I have mentioned on far more that one occasion, and to you, that I see the righteous indignation of the typical social justice warrior from “Jim H” and “Phineas”. Since social justice warriors are clearly more than a population of “one” (even on any given forum thread), your accusation is beyond ridiculous. It is basically, —A LIE—.
          Lol. Like the typical social justice warrior you are now inventing things to base a false refutation on.
          In reality it is you that is rudely awakened to how your delusion that those you see as conservative are “mouth breathing knuckle draggers” is, well, just a delusion. People that oppose the social justice warrior movements are often far more educated than your garden variety “SJW”. It’s always a laugh to see those with soft degrees (say, like “Journalism”, or “Political Science”) realize that their “intellect” is hardly significant in the real world.
          *****
          —–Rather than considering the possibility that your arguments are flawed, whether in logic or in delivery, your theory appears to be that everyone who shares a similar objection, whether me, Phineas, Jim, or Lachlan, must be the same person.—–
          No. If my arguments were flawed in logic you would have grabbed onto such aspects and paraded it about the field like you have won the right to the throne of the Seven Kingdoms. You have not, and your hubris makes gives you much angst. You haven’t gained even a single victory on anything in this discussion. You have lost —EVERY— battle, and have summarily lost the war. Anyone and everyone is witness to it. Get over it.
          My delivery? Certainly my presentation is dedicated to the uninhibited truth. As such, it often has little consideration for the “feelings” of those who are sensitive to unpleasant realities. Have a look at the plethora of abuse slung in my direction (and often without similar personal attack in return). Do you think that any of that stops me from achieving my goals? Really, Dannius, Phineas found out the hard way. You have now eliminated your credibility in similar fashion.
          “My” theory is that everyone who shares a similar objection must be the same person? —LIAR!— Show me exactly when and where I make any claim or suggestion of this. If there is one thing that social justice warriors seem to employ, it is that of the straw man argument.
          Review my posts, you will see that you, Phineas, and “Jim H” are deemed as either working in collusion, or even the same poster, —NOT— because they “share the same views”, but because of the expected “coincidences” of when one poster answers or runs interference for the other. The —fact— that “Phineas” deleted “his” profile, and then you took up “his” fight here is very suspicious. No. It isn’t because you have similar views, It is because the way your attack shows a co-ordinated effort that is unlikely to be different posters “arriving at the same conclusion”.
          This type of underhanded action has been seen by many here. It is quite familiar to those, like myself, that post inconvenient truths.
          *****
          —–Once again, I have no need to refute that. I’ll let your conspiracy theories speak for themselves.—–
          ROTFLMAO!!!
          Here we go with the “you are paranoid” ploy. Sorry, but you have essentially resorted to practically every fallacious method in the “Social Justice Warrior Bull-shi-do” . You have not only destroyed your credibility as a moderator on LAN, you have proven that you have little more than the typical immature rants of a precocious Arts Major.
          *****
          —–If you change your mind and decide to debate something worthwhile instead of who is a secret female, feel free to join in the reasonable and relevant discussion at LAN. Have a nice day.—–
          Not only is that a false dichotomy, you are ignoring how the discover of —DISHONEST— practices (including masquerading as a man) is relevant to any topic, you pretend that I have not made reasonable arguments.
          Your method is that of the typical social justice warrior. This includes, but is not exclusive of: —1— You don’t have any real counterpoint, but instead just say “nuh-uh” and think you have made a successful refutation. —2— You make false accusations and back it up with absolutely “nothing”. —3— You ignore comprehensive arguments made by your opposition and instead claim that those are just “opinion”. —4— You resort to personal insults (at first via innuendo and later, far less hidden) with the passive aggression that most “hurt women” work through. —5— You cap off your rants with the expected insincere “have a nice day” or the equivalent.
          OK. Dannius, you have now effectively demonstrated by your inability to support your case, and by your latent hostility that you are a very biased and close-minded individual who really has no case against what I asserted. Your reputation has been irrevocably sullied by your irreverent and —DISHONEST— approach. There is no doubt that your agenda is that of the typical misguided social justice warrior, who thinks their narrative is the “only way” and that anyone that disagrees is beneath you.
          Your contempt is poor camouflage for what is really a begrudging hate of the truth. Seriously, Dannius you are a fraud and it is time to grow up.

        45. What wild allegations from you? That I am Jim, Phineas, Lachlan, and/or whoever else you’ve accused me of being (I’ve lost track,) that these commenters are all women, etc. You can and have provided absolutely no evidence that any of these allegations are true, and the fact that you stick to them despite the obvious and try to reason them away with horribly weak arguments (“they were online at the same time!” etc.) speaks for itself.
          No, I did not come here to take up Phineas’ case or school anyone. I came here to hear you out and address ridiculous accusations about myself. Once again, that was clearly a mistake and I should have let you embarrass yourself with your own comments without me dignifying them with responses. Lesson learned.
          You continue to refuse to engage in civil discussion. You continue to prove that you are the one instigating personal attacks, ad hominems, and other unacceptable forms of debate, and yet you think you are qualified to call out logical fallacies. Ad hominem is itself a logical fallacy, and your entire arguments are built around them. You barely even let others get off the ground with their civilly presented positions before you respond by accusing them of lying and otherwise attacking their personal character rather than simply and civilly addressing the point of disagreement. So yes, it is actually a lot like political ads: not much substance, just a lot of negative attacks and twisting reality. In addition to being based on ad hominems, your arguing is absurdly hypocritical. Anytime I interpret what you say in a reasonable context, or use an example – as an example – in the same context you did (2+2=5), I am accused of lying. You on the other hand think you can get away with taking things out of context or completely misrepresenting facts, for example claiming that I argued you were only convincing yourself. I clearly was arguing that your hostility, negativity, and constant ad hominems push people away from your viewpoint, save for equally hostile commenters who share your views. Case in point: those commenters who spew similar accusations and share upvotes here at ROK, vs. those civil commenters at LAN who are fed up with your style of hostile personal attacks and agree with our efforts to keep conversation relevant and civil.
          Here’s some reality. You call out “trolls,” yet you are clearly much closer to the definition of troll than any person I have seen you argue with. Sure, some of them have created abusive posts, some of them have had comments deleted, some of them have been sucked into personal attack fests, but at least some of them have demonstrated that they are willing to engage in civil debate and rarely if ever instigate personal attacks. You on the other hand do nothing but initiate such attack fests, and argue about nothing more than why your attacks are accurate and justified, even necessary. Troll: “Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community…with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” You are guilty of all those things, with the exception that I can’t know for sure what your “intent” is. Unlike you, I can admit that I don’t know everything about a person’s character or gender simply based on a few online comments. But I can see that you do practically nothing but post inflammatory, off-topic insults, and when you finally goad someone into responding with frustration, you call them a woman and pretend they started it and should be banned. Sorry, you’re clearly the one behaving like a troll here, and it’s not welcome at LAN.
          You tell yourself whatever you want about that, carry on at ROK or wherever else you enjoy spending your time bitching about others. Such conversation is not welcome at LAN. If that means we (or I personally) take a hit in reputation from such hostile commenters as yourself who would rather argue about secret womanhood rather than relevant issues, so be it. Overall conversation at LAN will improve and will focus on relevant facts and logic rather than insults. I hope you can step out of the constant negativity and into reality someday. Until then, have a nice day.

        46. @ Dannius
          The underhanded methods of social justice warriors is easily demonstrated by witnessing how you use fallacy after fallacy in an attempt to deceive people into thinking you are dedicated to mature debate. You clearly are not. I have gone through each one of your points and have shown that you are about as disingenuous as the trolls you favor.
          As proven here, you will resort to all sorts of subterfuge (yes, you do) and that is a trait that is unbecoming of someone moderating anything. You ignore what you cannot refute (and that is practically everything) and instead resort to unfounded false accusations followed by the expected passive aggressive insults.
          While you feign this “request” for civil debate, it is a thin disguise for your agenda to create a safe space for “Jim H”’s narrative. I have shown that you are little more than the typical social justice warrior that just cannot accept opposing points of views.
          *****
          Part 2.1
          —–What wild allegations from you? That I am Jim, Phineas, Lachlan, and/or whoever else you’ve accused me of being (I’ve lost track,) that these commenters are all women, etc.—–
          Wild allegations? Lol. Your selective cognition is not doing your argument much good.
          What I asserted was that you clearly are working in collusion with (or are even actually the puppeteer of) Phineas. Furthermore, you demonstrate a clear favoritism for “Jim H”. Both of these deductions are carefully laid out with transparent supporting evidence. How that is a “wild allegation” is, well… a wild allegation.
          As far as posters like “Jim H”, the curiously defunct “Phineas” and you being women, that too was a reasoned argument based on clearly visible evidence. In summary, and further exhibited by your latest rant, you focus on trying “injure via personal attacks”, you focus on “feelings” and you employ the usual host of logical fallacies. These far more the actions of “women” than they are of men as far as Online discussions go. I detect that you think being a “woman” is an insult, yet I have not couched it in that sense.
          *****
          —–You can and have provided absolutely no evidence that any of these allegations are true, and the fact that you stick to them despite the obvious—–
          —LIAR— Yes, you are LYING as I have presented much corroboration towards the determination that you are sycophant of “Jim H”, likely the sock-puppeteer of “Phineas” (Again, “Phineas” curiously removed all traces of “himself” in and around the same time you started posting here… hmm…) You say the “obvious”, yet like usual you provide not even a single bit of reference to what is so “obvious”. You’ve lost the argument, your credibility, and, as it seems your decorum.
          *****
          —–…and try to reason them away with horribly weak arguments (“they were online at the same time!” etc.) speaks for itself.—–
          Horribly weak arguments? Really? We’ll cover that in a moment but first…
          It’s already been remarked that you employ straw man arguments (much like most social justice warriors) and you do it again! What was said that, as part of the evidence that you are working in collusion with (or are actually were masquerading as) “Phineas” was how frequently you respond in and around the same time. It’s a trend, not a single event. You speciously try to imply that the reasoning was that a single instance of posters online simultaneously means collusion or puppetry. Your —DISHONESTY— is showing. Yes, and it speaks, with forked tongue, for itself.
          …now back to “horribly weak arguments”. Where exactly are you seeing a “horribly weak argument” on my part. Quote it, and quote it in CONTEXT, Dannius. Let me save you some time… You can’t. That is because, like usual, you just make false claims and pretend that they stand on their own. Pathetic!
          *****
          —–No, I did not come here to take up Phineas’ case or school anyone. I came here to hear you out and address ridiculous accusations about myself. Once again, that was clearly a mistake and I should have let you embarrass yourself with your own comments without me dignifying them with responses. Lesson learned.—–
          No. Your actions betray someone who is upset because your belief that you could condescendingly put someone in their place failed miserably.
          “Phineas” tried to run interference for “Jim H” when Jimmy got into trouble. When that failed, you attempted to intervene by basically abusing your moderator status to take a side. You came here (again, curiously after “Phineas” removed all traces of “himself”) to try and win what you knew Phineas could not.
          Your mistake is the same mistake we see social justice warriors make on discussion forums all the time. Namely, you believe that no one that opposes the illogical and self-serving narrative of social justice warriors’ can possibly be as informed or cognizant as —yourselves—. It is the typical hubris of those with soft degrees that think they are sufficiently educated or experienced. You are not, and you got in way over your head. “Jim H” embarrassed “himself”, “Phineas” embarrassed “himself”. You? You did more than just embarrass yourself, you are now proving to be one heck of a sore loser too.
          *****
          —–I have yet to see a single disagreement from you with anyone in which you do anything more than accuse them of lying, dishonesty, sock-puppetry, womanhood, being an SJW, or all of the above.—–
          Well, it can be seen that I rarely, if ever, DISAGREE with concepts or deductions that are not formed correctly from sufficient evidence. To that end, arguments I “disagree” with are usually incorrectly assessed from the available record, merely an assumption (which is often biased), or, really just “wishful thinking”.
          Those who continue to press an illogically or falsely based conclusion, are then really just trying to force bad concepts. This will manifest often as people who make a false accusation, back it up with absolutely nothing, and then project that onto their opposition. All the while, the people who do that forget that as a written conversation it is far easier for any viewer, even a casual one, to review and recollect what was actually stated.
          I don’t merely “accuse” someone of things like being a liar. I build the case via their actions. If I remark that you are making a personal insult, I back it up with an in-context quotation like “Perhaps you should get out more”. Tell us all how that isn’t a passive aggressive insult levied at your opposition (and yes, you have to provide some evidence of a lack of worldly experience if you speciously feel it is valid). Oh, and don’t be thinking that I’m “hurt” by it because I mention it again. It was just a good example.
          Again, your descent into trying to “injure feelings” rather than refute the topic here (and the topic here, is clearly the —DISHONEST PRACTICES— of the typical social justice warrior) is a strong indicator that you are both a hurt woman and have some sycophantic connection with “Phineas” and “Jim H”. Let me guess, your “refutation” to this will be “nuh-uh! You!” Lol.
          *****
          —–You continue to refuse to engage in civil discussion. You continue to prove that you are the one instigating personal attacks, ad hominems, and other unacceptable forms of debate,—–
          Where have I refused a civilized exchanged when it is offered? Where? Come on. If you are going to make claims, at least provide something for all to see. Don’t mistake my intolerance for bullying as a refusal for more congeniality. Check your records. Did “Jim H” not resort to personal attack first?
          I instigate Argumentum ad Hominem? Really? Where? Don’t be speciously thinking that calling out people for constantly lying as “personal attack”. It is not. If people didn’t resort to lying, it won’t be called it. Easy… right?
          …continued

        47. Part 2.2
          *****
          —–…and yet you think you are qualified to call out logical fallacies.—–
          What you sponsor is that hypocrisy renders one “unqualified” in identifying logical fallacy. Lol. Even if I were being hypocritical (and I clear have not been, or is presently being), that is does not mean one cannot successfully point out fallacies in another’s argument. Tell us all, do you even —have— a grasp of logic? Really. I’m not trying to put you down, but after that bit of illogic you just posted, your acumen is suspect.
          *****
          —–Ad hominem is itself a logical fallacy, and your entire arguments are built around them. You don’t even let others get off the ground with their civilly presented positions before you respond by accusing them of lying.—–
          Seriously? You’re going to try that? You are quite the —DISHONEST— individual. However, it is expected of those that pretend to be “enlightened” but are really very closed-minded.
          If you are going to try that “definition game”, then you should be a little more transparent about what Argumentum ad Hominem actually refers to. As per Charles Taylor:
          “Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.” Taylor, Charles (1995). “Explanation and Practical Reason”. Philosophical Arguments. Harvard University Press. pp. 34–60. ISBN 9780674664760
          (Read that mitigation about credibility of statements of fact until even you get it.)
          …ROFL. So much for your “ad hominem” allegation.
          I don’t let others get off the ground with their arguments? That’s pathetic even for you, Dannius. It was clearly “Jim H” that tried to use personal insults in an attempt to silence my comment (which was not even directed at “him”) about how social justice warriors usually employ name-calling and insulting as a way to stop opposing views. It is particularly —DISHONEST— to pretend that it was I who does that.
          *****
          —–So yes, it is actually a lot like political ads: not much substance, just a lot of negative attacks and twisting reality.—–
          So… —NO— since practically —ALL— my deductions are accompanied by careful and comprehensive explanation (Come on, I challenge you point to a case where I have not provided due process. If you’re going to —LIE— like that, you will be called out on it). Negative “attacks”. No. I do tear apart bad arguments as I intend to, but they are not “negative attacks”. Twisting really??? Oh dear! Are you —SERIOUS—??? I give references and explanations while you just stick to your usual, “I said you are and that is that”… and you say “I’ am twisting reality? EVERYONE can see how ridiculous you are being. Really, Dannius. You are beyond —DISHONEST—, you are —DELUSIONAL—.
          *****
          —–For example, here’s some reality. You call out “trolls,” yet you are clearly much closer to the definition of troll than any person I have seen you argue with. Sure, some of them have created abusive posts, some of them have had comments deleted, some of them have been sucked into personal attack fests, but some or most of them have demonstrated that they are willing to engage in civil debate and rarely if ever instigate personal attacks.—–
          No. You are about as disingenuous as it gets with that semantics argument.
          Neither “Jim H” nor “Phineas McClintock” showed any intention to have a “civil debate” with either me or anyone else they saw as being opposed to the social justice warrior narrative. Anyone can simply observe the record to see that “Jim H” immediately resorts to personal attacks. As mentioned several times to you already, “Phineas” attempted the “intellectual” approach till he was caught on his DISHONESTY. He quickly degenerated to the same personal attacks and insults that “Jim H” used after that.
          Those two “rarely instigate personal attack”. You are LYING and you know it. I’ve already shown the cases where this has happened. All you do is deny it. That’s not a very compelling counter.
          *****
          —-You on the other hand do nothing but initiate such attack fests, and argue about nothing more than why your attacks are accurate and justified, even necessary.—–
          Like usual I hereby CHALLENGE you to demonstrate where I have “initiated” personal attacks. Do not confuse the demand for evidence or reasoning of the opposition’s position as “initiating personal attack”. Also, it has already been demonstrated that showing habitual LYING is not the fallacy of Argument ad Hominem.
          Do not conflate the justification of a position (be that position that some posters are resorting to LYING) as unnecessary repetition. If —DISHONEST— individuals like yourself simply ignore a delivery and simply repeat a false allegation, an explanation is likely to be reinforced.
          Do I do “nothing” but offer justification? Well, you seem to be ignorant of these explanations to speciously claim “I make wild claims”. Does your —DISHONESTY— know no bounds?
          *****
          —–Troll: “Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community…with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”—–
          I stated that “Jim H”, like most social justice warriors, quickly retreat to personal attacks and insults when confronted with any opposition to his/her views. Certainly you can have the “opinion” that to say this is “inflammatory”. However it is easily demonstrated by how both “Jim H” and “Phineas” waged their campaign to silence their dissenters.
          Extraneous? No. The way social justice warriors try to censor opposition via underhanded methods is critical to practically all discussions Online where they have a horse in the race. How you try to speciously defend and protect “Jim H” is yet another method that needed to be exposed. You gave away your position when you strode in you your steed to defend “Phineas” when “he” got stymied. That was obvious. It is just as obvious that you, when confronted with arguments you cannot refute, simply pretend they were only “wild allegations” (as if there was not reference or reasoning … and no one actually witnessing this exchange will believe you) and resort to just denying and claiming the opposition is just trying to be disruptive. You’re a —FRAUD— and it is now very noticeable.
          Typical of social justice warriors, you will not take responsibility of your own “emotions”. If you “feel” hostile, it is conveniently someone else’s fault. In that way you justify your righteous indignation. You are PATHETIC.
          …continued

        48. Part 2.3
          *****
          —–You are guilty of all those things, with the exception that I can’t know for sure what your “intent” is.—–
          Either you have very poor reading comprehension, or you are being disingenuous.
          My very first post on you site (and as a moderator, that would be very easy to find) basically states my position, and implies how that position is apropos for the topic. In addition, I have reiterated this on several occasions in responses directly to you. For you to claim that you “can’t know” what my “intent” is, well… that try an tell anyone you aren’t being, drum roll… —DISHONEST—.
          Oh, and I am not “guilty” of any of your unfounded accusations. I’ve shown the reasoning as to why (unlike you, who either makes things up, or worse yet, just makes the accusation … yes, and people can see this thread for a record of this even if you delete your post as I have quoted you word-for-word).
          *****
          —–But I can see that you do nothing but post inflammatory, off-topic insults, and when you finally goad someone into responding with frustration, you call them a woman and pretend they started it and should be banned. Sorry, you’re clearly the one behaving like a troll here, and it’s not welcome at LAN.—–
          I have not posted “inflammatory, off-topic insults” and you know it. In fact, in all your rants here, you side-step every point (because you cannot refute them) and simply just make false accusations. You project your frustration in not being able to defeat your opposition in debate, and resort to using all the usual fallacious methods typical to social justice warriors (therefore proving my premise, thanks!)
          I don’t suggest someone is a woman for merely being emotionally triggered. What I present is that those who avoid the logical route and instead resort to trying to “injure the opposition” via insults (and no, demonstrating that people are habitually LYING is not an insult … especially when it is clearly shown) are usually female. To that, I challenge you to show me that this is not generally the case.
          What should NOT be welcomed in any forum site, be it LAN or any other, are biased moderators. You are clear one of those (and I have given much evidence and reasoning to support that).
          *****
          —–You tell yourself whatever you want about that, carry on at ROK or wherever else—–
          Sorry, but I do not need your permission or endorsement to tell the truth about how some people behave online. Interestingly, it’s not telling myself that bothers you, it is telling the readers at large that does. That is why you try to just (falsely) accuse me of things so it looks like mud-slinging match. However, what you can’t do is to hide the record that I spend the time and effort to develop my positions while all you do is basically say, “nuh-uh… YOU!”
          ****
          —–you enjoy the negativity.—–
          Lol. That’s the typical “leap of faith” routine. You editorialize that what your opposition says or does is “negativity” and try to reinforce it with the indignant, “enjoy it”. All you are doing is rationalizing what you cannot accept. Again, social justice warriors defend their positions by being in denial of how illogical those concepts are. Anyone that challenges them to break free of those ideas is met with hostility. It’s an inconvenient truth. What you do about it is what is negative or positive.
          ****
          —–Such conversation is not welcome at LAN. If that means we (or I personally) take a hit in reputation from such hostile commenters as yourself who would rather argue about secret womanhood rather than relevant issues, so be it.—–
          Lol, iff negative conversation were not welcome at LAN, there would be no posts by “Jim H”.
          Be as righteously indignant as you want, but I have not be hostile to anyone who has not repeatedly been hostile to me first. Argue about “secret womanhood”? It is you that denies that it is relevant. However, when has honesty of a participant not been critical to the credibility of their contribution? This is all part of why social justice warriors are a problem that needs to be addressed in our society. Online they behave like information bullies, where their narrative, or methods cannot be questioned.
          *****
          —–Overall conversation at LAN will improve and will focus on relevant facts and logic rather than insults.—–
          No. Your “conversations” will just be self-serving “safe spaces” where those you favor can say and act as they wish. XOJane is much like that. Just how much credibility do you think that site has? Logic? HA!!! You should try it sometime. Really, Dannius. Read some of your responses with an objective mind and tell us all where you actually apply some logic. Feel free to use my responses as a guide. Logic… too funny, Dannius. —TOO FUNNY—.
          *****
          —–I hope you can step out of the constant negativity and into reality someday. Until then, have a nice day.—–
          Of course, what would one of your “I’ll cut you” speeches be without a condescending insult? I challenge you to show me WHERE I am being negative? I challenged “Phineas” to come here and debate me on what “he” thought he could. You take that up, but failed miserably.
          Yes, you did as I presented reasoned and supported arguments to which you basically said, “nuh-uh!” and throw in a few personal insults. Really, Dannius, all you’ve done here is just say “no it’s not”, make some unfounded accusations and then follow up with the expected passive aggressive remarks. You are a —FRAUD— and you know it. Now? —-EVERYONE— reading this knows it.
          Good job, I applaud your assistance (as unwitting as it was).

        49. Unfortunately, it still doesn’t seem you’re capable of doing anything other than throwing out accusations and telling yourself how logical they are, still providing no evidence but your own opinion coupled with troll-like insults.
          As I expected, you repeatedly did all that then attempted to turn it back on me by referring to my posts as “I’ll cut you” speeches and “mud-slinging.” That’s exactly what you did with Phineas and it’s probably a safe bet that’s what you did with Jim. You can’t complain about mud-slinging when that’s all you do.
          Luckily for me, as you said, people can see a record of this conversation and see how people like me try to carry on a civil conversation with you only to be accused of lying, sock puppetry, and womanhood. Not that people who hang out at a site that bashes women for getting tattoos would have a problem with your negativity, but still. That’s my point: that’s how you communicate, and it’s not acceptable at LAN. Not much else to discuss.
          Have fun over here. Let me save you some time with your response:
          “You are – DISINGENUOUS! Liar! Spoken like a woman!” (Condensed version)

        50. —–Unfortunately, it still doesn’t seem you’re capable of doing anything other than throwing out accusations and telling yourself how logical they are, still providing no evidence but your own opinion coupled with troll-like insults.—–
          ROTFLMAO. You have now been reduced to the “parroting” that we always see from defeated social justice warriors. Sorry, Dannius, but everyone can see that it is —YOU— that just makes “wild claims” without even a shred of evidence. You share that behavior with “Phineas” and “Jim H” as well.
          Really, do all you social justice warriors believe so much in your self-righteousness that simply calling those who disagree with you, “trolls” makes you suddenly “back in Kansas” again? Do you even see how pathetic you look?
          *****
          —–As I expected, you repeatedly did all that then attempted to turn it back on me by referring to my posts as “I’ll cut you” speeches and “mud-slinging.” That’s exactly what you did with Phineas and it’s probably a safe bet that’s what you did with Jim. You can’t complain about mud-slinging when that’s all you do.—–
          Lol. Really, Dannius, everyone can see that you are just projecting your style of “argument” (which was very similar to that of the now MIA “Phineas”). Seriously, you’ve not even attempted to answer —ANY— challenge put forth to show exactly where your opposition did anything you falsely accused them off. You’re not fooling anyone. You’re just in denial of your own failure.
          I don’t mud-sling and you should learn to read. Go check out what Argumentum ad Hominem is and is not. Again, I CHALLENGE you to show me that my explanation in the post you just responded to is incorrect.
          *****
          —–Luckily for me, as you said, people can see a record of this conversation and see how people like me try to carry on a civil conversation with you only to be accused of lying, sock puppetry, and womanhood.—–
          No. Unluckily for you, the record absolutely shows how all you do is parrot and evade explanation. You have not attempted to have a civil conversation. You were not merely “accused” of lying, sock puppetry and acting like a hurt woman. The case was built up through careful examination of your behavior. You already been told this, and have not even attempted to refute any of it.
          *****
          —–Not that people who hang out at a site that bashes women for getting tattoos would have a problem with your negativity, but still.—–
          Ah, “people who hang out at a site that bashes [sic] women”… and who is now trying to debase the character of others? What? You are allowed to baselessly do that, but no one else is? That’s rather hypocritical is it not?
          Again, you can assert “negativity”, but like usual you do not provide any evidence or reasoning as to how you arrive at that. If anything it is your wishful thinking that your opposition is somehow “hurt” emotionally (that kind of projection of “feelings” is very female by the way).
          Bashing women? If you are to make such a claim then prove it (I doubt that you will though).
          *****
          —–That’s my point: that’s how you communicate, and it’s not acceptable at LAN. Not much else to discuss.—–
          No. That is one of your false premises. I basically “stick to the topic” which includes showing when people are being dishonest or applying fallacious arguments. That’s what anyone dedicated to civil debate does. You merely conflate anything that is said about your position being wrong, or if someone shows that you are being deceitful as “uncivil”. Seriously, Dannius, are you even qualified to be discussing things on a forum (much less being a moderator)?
          *****
          —–Have fun over here.—–
          As I said before, your condescending permission is not required for anyone to have “fun”. You lost the argument and you know it. All the bravado in the world doesn’t change it.
          *****
          —–Let me save you some time with your response:
          “You are – DISINGENUOUS! Liar! Spoken like a woman!” (Condensed version)—–
          No. My response will be, as always a comprehensive rebuttal of your very weak attempts to evade. Try as much as you like, but you’ve basically eliminated any doubt that you are a social justice warrior who knows “he” is wrong, so “he” resorts to the usual insults and evasion. Really, Dannius, you shouldn’t have been so self-assured that someone other than a social justice Arts major couldn’t possibly have enough intelligence to call out your bullshit.
          Let me save —YOU— some time on your usual response:
          Dannius: “Nuh-uh! You!”

        51. You have beaten Jim H so badly that he had to kill his Phineas ID. He created a new one because he cannot function away from a sympathetic moderator. When he is not posting in the LAN thread he uses https://disqus.com/by/gree0232/.

        52. The tattoo article bashes women who get tattoos and that’s clearly what I was referring to. There are some people that are so closed-minded and hostile, it’s near impossible to communicate with them. Whether you’re one of them I can’t say for sure, but you’re certainly acting like one.
          I haven’t proved anything? I don’t need to. I’m not here to convince you, I’m here to tell you that your trolling is not welcome at LAN. If you want proof, go read the thread with Phineas, it’s still there. Re-read this thread. People approach you in a civil way and you accuse them of dishonesty or some other flaw. I have yet to see a conversation with someone of a different view in which you don’t do that. I’m not sure whether it’s more disappointing that that’s what you choose to do, or that it’s all you can do.
          Goodbye. 🙂

        53. Geezus, I apologize for not finding this before now, but I think you’ve done an excellent job at covering, in detail our objections (or at least mine anyway). I was not aware that all this discussion was going on “behind the scenes”. If you’ve noticed, I don’t even respond to him anymore, despite several challenges and demands that I do so.
          As far as mod policies go, National Review (NRO) has an extremely interesting (and in my opinion effective) one. If a number of their trusted, long term posters drops an @troll flag, is enough to elicit a ban. If the privilege is abused in a vindictive way, the flagger gets banned. People frequently have passionate back and forth discussions, and many points of view are still allowed.
          Every day “Dannius” continues to play dumb about the gravity of this situation is another day that LAN’s credibility is damaged. Calvin was a much better moderator, and I’m sorry he’s gone.

        54. —–The tattoo article bashes women who get tattoos and that’s clearly what I was referring to.—–
          As was I. However, your implications are like most who see this thread and are defensive of anything that doesn’t place women on a pedestal. You immediately feel that “not all women who get tattoos” are like what is described here. The unpleasantness is that there really is an element of truth in what is said here. Most women in our society who get tattoos have some of the psychological issues talked about in this piece. Feel free to discuss that with the people here.
          *****
          —–There are some people that are so closed-minded and hostile, it’s near impossible to communicate with them.—–
          Yes, there are some people who are closed-minded and hostile. However, as I have demonstrated with “Jim H”, “Phineas” and now you, your stubbornness is really nothing more than a defense mechanism to protect a fragile ego.
          Is it near impossible to communicate with them? No. Just in seeing how you have become very hostile and respond by evasion tells me that I have gotten through to you. By your increasing contempt, you —KNOW— you are wrong, but just cannot admit it. So you dig in your heels and think you are “winning”.
          *****
          —–Whether you’re one of them I can’t say for sure, but you’re certainly acting like one.—–
          Lol. The usual passive aggressive approach to denigration (and you still think that people don’t see that you are acting very “female”?)
          Seriously, Dannius. Consider the volume of evasive posts filled with personal attacks (and stop confusing legitimate exposure of dishonesty in conduct as “personal attack”… because it is not) from “Jim H”, “Phineas” and now you. Most people will wonder how you can accuse me of anything but being a very patient and congenial individual. See the history of exchange through an objective state of mind. Go on. Do that. Just where have I ever been hostile to anyone that actually tries to discuss the issues? Even now, all you do is —EVADE— what you cannot refute, and throw in a few disparaging remarks. Tell us all how that isn’t acting every bit the “hurt woman”.
          Even now, I challenge you to show me where my deductions are hasty or unsupported.
          *****
          —–I haven’t proved anything? I don’t need to.—–
          Lol. You “don’t need to” prove anything if all you are doing is ranting or trying to injure your opposition. That much is very clear in your attacks (and they are attacks). However, most people who are trying to impress their ideas onto others (and not just their opposition) are best served by supporting what they assert. I’m sure you are fully aware of that, but your agenda to “attack” overrides common sense. Your ego is doing most of the talking of late.
          *****
          —–I’m not here to convince you, I’m here to tell you that your trolling is not welcome at LAN.—–
          No I have not “trolled” LAN and you know it. You are just trying to rationalize your hostility towards someone who has cornered your bad argument. If anything is not welcome it is those who abuse their authority. I offered “Phineas” a neutral site (here) to discuss the issue “he” had. You took up that challenge … you lost. For that, you try to convince yourself that you “didn’t” lose and that actually came here as a favor to me … spare all of us the charade.
          *****
          —–If you want proof, go read the thread with Phineas, it’s still there. Re-read this thread. People approach you in a civil way and you accuse them of dishonesty or some other flaw.—–
          Lol. You talk as if people haven’t actually been witness to both “Phineas” and your denouement here. Your arguments were soundly beaten. You put your reputation in front like a human shield and had that destroyed as well. Really, Dannius your credibility as an educated and fair adjudicator has been stained by your —OWN ACTIONS— (probably irrevocably so by now).
          Merely because people “appear” to be civil in approach does not mean they are not promoting falsehoods, taking advantage of others, or perpetrating any number of torts. It is like saying, “that person asked you kindly to hand over your wallet (he/she even said please)” and then saying that the would-be victim of a robbery was just mean and nasty in how he reacted. Oh… and don’t take the analogy out-of-context to say, “that’s a crime, it’s different” … ‘cause it’s not. The point is that “being civil” and “being dishonest” are independent variables. Really, Dannius. Not getting that is all part of why your credibility is suspect.
          Oh, and while I’m sure you will accuse me of being “sexist” again, this needs to be said:
          It is often women that truly believe that couching anything “nicely” makes it all “OK”. You see it when they are all flustered that any man could be reacting less-than-kindly to being rebuffed for, say, their race, or for not having a lot of hair on their head. (Oh, those are examples so don’t be thinking those are actual personal issues). Women can’t seem to understand that the content of a message is far more critical than the ribbons and wrapping paper that it is delivered in. Do you really think anyone still believes you to be a “man”?
          *****
          —–I have yet to see a conversation with someone of a different view in which you don’t do that.—–
          Have you even considered that it is those promote the arguments I disagree with that have the problem? Lol. Of course not. By the record we see on Disqus, you “blame” the attacked and not the attacker when you align with the attacker’s agenda. You —CONVENIENTLY— neglect how those I disagree with are quick to pour on the personal attacks and insults (just like the passive aggressive ones you are injecting now) to disingenuous make it seem like I am being unjustifiably unkind in return.
          That kind of —DISHONESTY— is why you are deemed as unfit to be posting, much less being the arbiter of who gets to post on Live Action News.
          *****
          —–I’m not sure whether it’s more disappointing that that’s what you choose to do, or that it’s all you can do.—–
          Sorry, Dannius, but you can’t use a false allegation (and it has been shown to be false) as a foundation for further insult.
          In all seriousness it is a question whether or not you actually understand the difference between malicious Argumentum ad Hominem (like, that ubiquitous “you have a small dick”) and necessary discovery of personal behavior (like frequently lying or misdirection to evade topics). Perhaps it is your ego that is preventing you from admitting that have been wrong, but really, do yourself a favor: Step back and look at what you “think” you know and what is really the case.
          *****
          —–Goodbye. 🙂——
          Ha! It’s always a laugh to see how some think that their attention is so important. Really, you are saying “goodbye” as if anyone would miss your rants. As I have probably mentioned before, these responses are for —EVERYONE— to see how social justice warriors behave. Your agreement, your acknowledgement, your “respect”, your attention… all of these are not required to get this message out. Why is it that some people think they are so important to the process?
          (Oh, and if you really meant “goodbye” as if you are leaving, you don’t seem to, do you… lol… just… can’t… let.. it… go… without… stabbing… at… that… guy… must make some passive aggressive insult…)

        55. You really read too much into my goodbye. 🙂
          I can see the difference in the ad hominems as you describe them. But accusing someone of lying, sock puppetry, womanhood, etc. rather than directly debating the moderation standards is ad hominem, and not the good kind – if there is such a thing. You mentioned “you have a small dick” as an example of a malicious ad hominem, but you would not consider “you don’t have a dick” rephrased as “you are a woman” to be in the same category, even when coupled with your negative views of women which you yourself just elaborated on?
          “Most people will wonder how you can accuse me of anything but being a very patient and congenial individual.”
          Okay. 😉
          “Women can’t seem to understand that the content of a message is far more critical than the ribbons and wrapping paper that it is delivered in. Do you really think anyone still believes you to be a “man”?”
          Yeah, not sexist at all. 😉 As I’ve said several times, I really don’t even have to refute this stuff, it speaks for itself.
          “Even now, I challenge you to show me where my deductions are hasty or unsupported.”
          We’ve been through this. Hasty: you accused Phineas of dishonesty on your first post to him, you levied multiple false accusations at me before even engaging me directly, and repeated some of them on your second comment to me, I believe. Hasty? Check. Unsupported? No, nearly all your accusations are supported. The problem is what they are supported with: “They were online at the same time!” “That’s something a woman would say!” “The name Dannius sounds like Phineas!” Seriously? This is really a rare case for me in that the arguments are so poor, I almost don’t know how to address them. Arguing with them gives them more credit than they’re worth, which is frustrating because I know you can do better. You could have just debated the moderation standards without the personal attacks, and that would have been completely fine and we may have just made some quality progress. As you can see from my interactions with other individuals, I am happy to hear out concerns with my moderation and to adjust when appropriate. But your insistence on personal attacks only serves to further prove the very reason why discussions like this are not appropriate at LAN.
          I’m sure you may say I’m just attempting to take the moral high ground or look like the good guy here, but regardless of how you perceive it I would like to do my part to either end this on a civil note or if necessary move it forward on a civil note. There are a few comments I made here that were unnecessary (“you should get out more”), as I was giving in to frustration at being accused of false things. While I strongly disagree with some of your views and your style of argumentation, I’m sure you’re a good guy and I wish you would be willing to consider trying something besides the personal attack routine.

        56. —–Geezus, I apologize for not finding this before now, but I think you’ve done an excellent job at covering, in detail our objections (or at least mine anyway). I was not aware that all this discussion was going on “behind the scenes”. If you’ve noticed, I don’t even respond to him anymore, despite several challenges and demands that I do so.—–
          No apologies required, my friend. It is refreshing to see someone state the obvious truth. The way “Jim H”, “Phineas” and now even “Dannius” act, it shows that they each (if it is really more than two individuals between the three… lol) recognize that they are not right. The amount of pure rationalization by Dannius is shameful. I really don’t understand why social justice warriors just don’t face the truth. It could be that recognizing that one’s very foundation is fallacious is something to fear. Denial tends to do that.
          —–As far as mod policies go, National Review (NRO) has an extremely interesting (and in my opinion effective) one. If a number of their trusted, long term posters drops an @troll flag, is enough to elicit a ban. If the privilege is abused in a vindictive way, the flagger gets banned. People frequently have passionate back and forth discussions, and many points of view are still allowed.—–
          That’s an interesting take on how cities end up with “aldermen” (or “alder-or-younger-stlgbtq-challenged-survivor-special-snowflake” if we go by today’s PC rules). Ultimately it is still the authority that makes the decision so bad moderation is something that, left unchecked, eventually turns a forum site into a “safe space” where like-minded individuals go to affirm their delusions.
          If forums had much greater direct influence, it is likely a revolving accreditation process would be put in place. Then again, even legal systems have their “bad apples”. I’ve reasoned with the challenger here, and though “he” is publically resolute in “his” beliefs, I’m certain that he does recognize the uncomfortable “feeling” of cognitive dissonance. Rome wasn’t built in a day and I’ll work at constructing it one brick at a time.
          —–Every day “Dannius” continues to play dumb about the gravity of this situation is another day that LAN’s credibility is damaged. Calvin was a much better moderator, and I’m sorry he’s gone.—–
          It is likely a viscous emulsion of denial, ego, blind faith and the hubris of thinking that an Arts degree trumps the recognition that one’s position is faulty. However, it is rather incredible that anyone who thinks themselves open-minded and educated would think that they could fool anyone into believing that “Jim H” isn’t anything but a particularly arrogant propagandist. Why anyone would throw away their reputation this way shows what happens when “saving face” is more important than improving the gray mass behind it.
          I’m not familiar with Calvin, but I’m sure he was every bit the good moderator if you say so. It probably doesn’t pay a lot so he moved on. Rest assured, “Jim H” would have lasted about an hour on a site that has real moderation.

        57. Jim H wussed out of a fair fight with about six commenters in the LAN thread today.
          He was probably worried you would show up.
          He really made himself look like a total pussy.

        58. Ha ha I love that *.gif. The guy really does appear to agree.

        59. Part 3.1
          —–You really read too much into my goodbye. 🙂—–
          Not really. It was a predictor that you need to get in the last word.
          *****
          —–I can see the difference in the ad hominems as you describe them.—-
          That would be prudent since that guy from Harvard seems to know what he is talking about.
          *****
          —–But accusing someone of lying, sock puppetry, womanhood, etc. rather than directly debating the moderation standards is ad hominem,—–
          Nice try.
          Within the —CONTEXT— of how those involved in a discussion need to be dedicated to truthful information, it is —WHOLLY ON-TOPIC— to identify falsehoods as well as the CONSISTENT DELIVERY of falsehoods when encountered (“The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”… hmm…). Within the —CONTEXT— of how independent support has impact on credibility, it is —WHOLLY ON-TOPIC— to identify the creation of false corroborators (why do you think there are efforts taken such that people don’t vote more than once?) Within the —CONTEXT— of how the impact of a person’s support in subjects that are very much divided by a person’s sex affects the topic of that particular Live Action News thread, it is —WHOLLY ON-TOPIC to identify when people are masquerading their gender (“I’m not a doctor, I just play one on television”… hmm…).
          Don’t try this phony “personal attack” bullshit anymore. Even a grade six dropout would figure it out by now.
          Notice that I offer a full and reasonable explanation to support my position. In deep contrast, you only state your opinion without even the slightest bit of why you “feel” that way. Really, Dannius, step back. Look at what I present and what you present. Do you really think your argument has any relative merit? Be honest.
          *****
          —–and not the good kind – if there is such a thing.—–
          You claim to understand the difference between warranted and unwarranted “Argumentum ad Hominem”, and you immediately pretend that there might be no “such thing” as the “good kind”. This is the kind of disingenuous speech that makes destroys your reputation.
          As it was already relayed to you:
          “Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.” Taylor, Charles (1995). “Explanation and Practical Reason”. Philosophical Arguments. Harvard University Press. pp. 34–60. ISBN 9780674664760
          —–You mentioned “you have a small dick” as an example of a malicious ad hominem, but you would not consider “you don’t have a dick” rephrased as “you are a woman” to be in the same category, even when coupled with your negative views of women which you yourself just elaborated on?—–
          First of all, my “views on women” are largely unknown to you, and, from has been noted is hardly “negative”. More on this in a moment, but let’s go over why your comment here is fallacious…
          The ubiquitous “you have a small dick” is implied as “you are a man with a small dick”. That is clearly an unfounded comment in nearly all cases (like, what someone has actual evidence of this) and is meant to be derogatory. However “you are a woman” is not the same as it is not an insult (unless you think being a woman is insulting… now who is being sexist?) Why is it not an insult? That is because it is “you are a woman… and as implied, no greater or less than the average women”. It does not say you have a relatively “fat ass”, or a relatively “this” or “that” in comparison to the average woman. But, to say “you have a small dick” (being a man is implied) is meant to insult someone as being lessor (much lessor) than the average man.
          Furthermore, you and “Phineas” were deemed to be female because of the relative ease in which both of you slipped into trying to “injure the feelings” of your opposition when you got refuted. Only you surreptitiously conflate “being female” as being a man without a dick. There is nothing “wrong” with being a female. Both sexes as a group have things they do better or worse than the counterpart. Why is it that you only see the negative? Really.
          Note, Dannius: There’s the difference again in how I deliver a comprehensive argument… so stop foolishly saying I just make “wild claims”.
          *****
          —–[Geezus]”Most people will wonder how you can accuse me of anything but being a very patient and congenial individual.”
          Okay. 😉—–
          Lol. That’s why being smug usually backfires. OK?
          *****
          —–[Geezus]”Women can’t seem to understand that the content of a message is far more critical than the ribbons and wrapping paper that it is delivered in. Do you really think anyone still believes you to be a “man”?”
          Yeah, not sexist at all. 😉 As I’ve said several times, I really don’t even have to refute this stuff, it speaks for itself.—–
          One of the biggest clues that a poster is female is in how “he” thinks any comment, yes —ANY—comment that doesn’t elevate women, means the commenter is “sexist”. Really, Dannius, try to be at least a little objective.
          Oh, and back to my “views on women”…
          In —-CONTEXT— it is asserted that women, as a group, have a lot more trouble trying to understand that the MESSAGE is far more impactful than the PACKAGING. As I already explained, some women just don’t seem to understand why people are not impressed with things like, “Must be this or that innate trait to respond to my profile… but hey, have a great day! That’s just my preference”. They go on about “I was nice about [my prejudice]”. Really, Dannius. Men, in general, are far more interested in the truth of the matter than how people say things, as in did they say it “nicely”.
          You don’t attempt to refute this, because you probably realize that you really can’t. Men and women have many behaviors and other attributes that as groups, are remarkably different. Some are so different that there is little crossover. When other indicators are observed, it’s usually quite easy to tell who is female and who is male. Wait… am I being man-basher now? I listed male AFTER female there! Oh the hate! The hate! (Yeah… can you see how that looks when it’s reversed?)
          *****
          —–[Geezus]”Even now, I challenge you to show me where my deductions are hasty or unsupported.”
          We’ve been through this.—–
          Actually, no. We have not. To this point you have not attempted to show any specific case.
          *****
          —–Hasty: you accused Phineas of dishonesty on your first post to him,—–
          No. If you are going to reference specifics, then it is expected that you be somewhat accurate. In my first post to “Phineas”, I mentioned how his first comment was disingenuous (In fact the term “dishonest” does not even appear in that post).
          Nonetheless, while you can say that he was accused of disingenuous commentary, you have not demonstrated where I did it without reasoning or pointing out where he was doing this. This is not a good start, Dannius. Not only have you never “been through this”, you really aren’t doing it now.
          *****
          —–…you levied multiple false accusations at me before even engaging me directly, and repeated some of them on your second comment to me, I believe.—–
          That is false too, and, you are back to just saying, “nuh-uh” again. If you believe the accusations are so “false”, then show us all how they are. I’ve challenged you many times on this, and to the moment all you do is say that it “isn’t true”. Contempt is poor camouflage for inability.
          *****
          —–Hasty? Check.—–
          Do you even see how desperately in denial that is? You haven’t show one bit of evidence that the allegations were “hasty”. The only thing you attempted (the bit about “you accused Phineas of dishonesty”) just speciously ignored how I demonstrated that “Phineas” was actually being disingenuous. Hasty? —-UNCHECK—.
          …Continued

        60. Part 3.2
          *****
          —–Unsupported? No, nearly all your accusations are supported. The problem is what they are supported with: “They were online at the same time!” “That’s something a woman would say!” “The name Dannius sounds like Phineas!” Seriously? This is really a rare case for me in that the arguments are so poor, I almost don’t know how to address them.—–
          What you are attempting there is to take single attributes, outside of the CONTEXT in how they are part of a series of attributes that help to resolve a solution when applied TOGETHER. Basically it is like saying, “feathers… means a duck… ha! Jumping to conclusions! Jumping to conclusions!” but neglecting to mention that there were also the observations of “quacking”, “webbed feet”, “looks like a Mallard”, etc…
          As far as being online simultaneously, it is rare that independent posters answer posts many hours later, but at the same time… many times over. Once? Maybe a coincidence. Many times, and many hours later? Not so much. You carry on the same “trust me, I saw Jim H being respectful in the past” as “Phineas”. Yes. The cadence of your chosen Disqus names is quite similar. Then, to pull it all together, “Phineas” curiously removes all traces in and around the same time you decide to take on the challenge that was put forth to “him”. Really, Phin-nius. It’s “quacking like a duck”.
          As far as things a woman would say, it is better echoed as “how women react when losing a debate”. The personal attacks, the evasion, the denial of things one has said… these are all traits that are far more common with young women than with any other given segment of the population except children. However, children are ruled out since they aren’t quite as resolute in being deceptive.
          *****
          —–Arguing with them gives them more credit than they’re worth, which is frustrating because I know you can do better. You could have just debated the moderation standards without the personal attacks, and that would have been completely fine and we may have just made some quality progress.—–
          Sorry, Dannius, but truthfully, it is your arguments (or really, deflections) that are poor. Don’t even try to say that they aren’t. Do better? I don’t think you have earned any credentials to judge the ability of building a strong case in a debate. Really, Dannius, the condescending tone isn’t fooling anyone. Just be honest and admit that you can’t explain your position legitimately even to yourself. This is a problem with many social justice warriors. They just can’t accept that their narrative is wrong.
          Actually, progress has been made. Firstly, “Phineas” capitulated when “he” could no longer pretend to be intellectual. More people know that “Jim H” is a —LIAR— and an arrogant self-righteous propagandist. There was no intent to destroy your reputation, but since you used it as a shield, it has become a casualty.
          *****
          —–As you can see from my interactions with other individuals, I am happy to hear out concerns with my moderation and to adjust when appropriate. But your insistence on personal attacks only serves to further prove the very reason why discussions like this are not appropriate at LAN.—–
          Oh please, Dannius. You have no authority here, and that lofty attitude cannot hide your inability to address the points or challenges put forth. Again, I really don’t care what you profess as your moderation of a forum site. If I did, I’d be petition you on your site. You are the one coming here.
          Personal attack? You have yet to provide even a microgram of evidence that I am applying any sort of “personal attack”. Stop trying to misrepresent the valid exposure of —DISHONEST ARGUMENTS— as personal attack. You’ve already been —REFUTED— on that. What you believe is “appropriate” on Live Action News is a farce. Many posters have pointed that out to you already.
          *****
          —–I’m sure you may say I’m just attempting to take the moral high ground or look like the good guy here, but regardless of how you perceive it I would like to do my part to either end this on a civil note or if necessary move it forward on a civil note.—–
          No. You are actually still trying to save face. The point is that you —KNOW— the difference between the valid presentation of when and where people are essentially deflecting or —LYING— to create a false sense of an opposing view, and, actual petty personal attack. Get over it. Do the right thing and recognize that who the real problems are. I’m certain you need to voice that it is I, but I am just as certain you know it really isn’t.
          *****
          —–There are a few comments I made here that were unnecessary (“you should get out more”), as I was giving in to frustration at being accused of false things.—–
          Even now you are rationalizing why you resorted to such denigration. It really wasn’t because you were frustrated over false accusations. You were unhappy that the foundation of your position is actually faulty. If I were actually making false accusations, two things would hardly happen. __1__ I wouldn’t be able to support my case with reference to the actual record (and I have been able to over and over again). __2__ You wouldn’t have to use all sorts of excuses to cover up why you haven’t just taken the easy route and point me to exactly where, and how, I was making “false accusations”. All you’ve done is say, “you are making false accusations” and at best used some fallacious method to support it (of which each were easily torn down by a rebuttal from me).
          Yes. You were frustrated. Who wouldn’t be when their beliefs are causing cognitive dissonance? Yes, those comments really didn’t help your case.
          *****
          —–While I strongly disagree with some of your views—-
          Yes, there is little doubt that you strongly disagree. However, “why” one disagrees is something that each one of us should examine carefully … especially when one can’t really come up with reasons. Sure it “feels” wrong, but when the argument against it doesn’t really exist, perhaps, the things one disagrees with aren’t really wrong. I’d like to think that an extra half-pizza won’t add to my waist line. I “feel” it shouldn’t. But reality is a different story.
          *****
          —–and your style of argumentation,—–
          I’m not sure what “style” would suit you if someone holds concepts you feel are wrong. I can only present a case, back up that case with available evidence and reasoning. Counterpoints are challenged with sufficient energy to tear them down. As much as my detractors wish, I don’t arrive at my deductions in haste. I am merciless on bad arguments, and will not be deterred by hostages placed in front of those bad arguments. Some may not like this. But the truth should not be held at bay to save the “feelings” of those that don’t want to hear it. Then again, I don’t force anyone to listen to me.
          *****
          —–I’m sure you’re a good guy and I wish you would be willing to consider trying something besides the personal attack routine.—–
          The problem is that you —RATIONALIZE— that I am making “personal attacks”. I am not. This is important so I will repeat the reference:
          “Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.” Taylor, Charles (1995). “Explanation and Practical Reason”. Philosophical Arguments. Harvard University Press. pp. 34–60. ISBN 9780674664760
          Really, Dannius. Few proceedings in court, discussions in a boardroom or debates on a forum could ever arrive at the truth, if people are allowed to —LIE— without the penalty of being ejected. You can’t be seriously thinking that disallowing any challenge on perjury, especially deliberate misinformation leads to discovering the truth in anything (especially when people have strong prejudices).
          If you really want to —end— this on a civil note, just do this: Show me where Charles Taylor is wrong. You don’t have to arrive at this today, next week, or next month. Just show me when you have a chance to find something that refutes that quotation. You know where to find me.

        61. Come on man. 😉 You can shroud reality all you want in multitude of words and mentions of Charles Taylor, but here’s what it boils down to:
          You’re accusing me of being a woman, a fraud, and a sock puppet for Phineas, Jim, Lachlan, and who else?
          You seem to legitimately think the accusations are accurate, I know they’re not. You can yap about it all you want and invoke as many Harvard authorities as you think improve your case, it won’t change the truth. You conveniently pick accusations that are near impossible to disprove, at least in context of two strangers communicating online. I’m not going to send you a screenshot to prove my maleness, I’m not going to gather IP info from Jim et al. to prove my posts come from a different location. The fact that you think you have proved anything sheds a poor light on already poor arguments.
          Please stop playing games about the sexism. Your comments accusing people of being a woman are usually, as far as I’ve seen, accompanied by negative comments about women. Even if it was a compliment, which is not how you meant it, it’s still sexist. Making generalized statements about women, then applying that to anyone you perceive as sharing a similar trait is closed minded and sexist, and even after seeing how easily you convince yourself, I’m still a bit surprised at how sure you are in your wild accusations. You’re also playing semantics with the hasty argument, and it’s obvious. Disingenuous, dishonest, lying, whatever. You hastily accuse your opposition of dishonesty, regardless of which exact word you use, and the record clearly shows that both here and at LAN. It’s clearly become a habit for you, and it’s very lazy debating, which is surprising considering the amount of time you put into this.
          All of that is an aside though. You’re welcome to think I’m a woman and a multi sock fraud if you want, believe it or not I’ve been called worse ;). The point is that LAN doesn’t want conversations based on personal insults, and you can see why right here. If you can work with that, great. If you can’t, okay. There are tons of websites, like this one, where your behavior will apparently be tolerated or even welcome, and we can go our seperate ways.

        62. @ Dannius
          Seriously, “man”, you don’t have a legitimate argument and you know it. All you do is say, “nuh-uh” and try to slip in a few insults in an attempt to “hurt” someone back….
          Part 4.1
          —–Come on man. 😉 You can shroud reality all you want in multitude of words and mentions of Charles Taylor, but here’s what it boils down to:
          You’re accusing me of being a woman, a fraud, and a sock puppet for Phineas, Jim, Lachlan, and who else?—–
          Wow, your —DISHONESTY— is really starting to show, “Dannius”.
          It was gathered that you are probably a woman since you do some things that far fewer men resort to when they get refuted in a debate. __1__ You resort to misrepresenting your comments in order to make up a false refutation (you’re doing it right now, and we will go over all of it). __2__ You see only the things you want to see (I never put women in a “negative” light, you just say it is.) __3__ You provide no support to your allegations, and ignore that others have provided references. __4__ You hold others to standards you feel you do not need to keep. __4__ You get refuted on something and you don’t acknowledge it and instead just move onto another deflection …. And… most of all… __6__ You IGNORE clear and concise refutation and just repeat the same old lies again.
          You can say “men do it too!”, but you are ignoring the apparently difference in frequency that men do this. Look at all those who share a similar view on this topic (…and yes the topic is REALLY, “Why it is important to expose lies and habitual lying in debates). Do you see them resorting to the fallacious methods that you employ?
          Oh, and nice try at embellishing there. You are likely in collusion with “Phineas” or “Phineas” was your sock-puppet. You are in collusion with “Jim H” (alternately, “Phineas” was “his” sock-puppet). There isn’t this “You’re this sock-puppet, you’re that sock puppet”. You are basically trying to apply the Reductio ad Absurdum ploy. Weak sauce.
          *****
          —–You seem to legitimately think the accusations are accurate, I know they’re not. You can yap about it all you want and invoke as many Harvard authorities as you think improve your case, it won’t change the truth.—–
          Nice try at the hidden change of subject there, Dannius (really… the more you try, the more you expose the —DISHONEST— practices that social justice warriors depend on).
          In particular, your initial reference on “accusations” are to how I have seen that you are probably a women masquerading as a man. You then draw in my reference to Charles Taylor as if Taylor was used to reinforce that. It CLEARLY WASN’T. The Harvard document was used to support why pointing out misrepresentation and misinformation is necessary to the process (and not the fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem, or personal attack). Everyone can see the DISHONESTY you are applying there, Dannius. That is pathetic and definitely not the conduct of someone who should be moderating anything.
          *****
          —–You conveniently pick accusations that are near impossible to disprove, at least in context of two strangers communicating online. I’m not going to send you a screenshot to prove my maleness,—–
          Nobody has asked for, or implied that, you have to provide some sort of “proof” of maleness. You are just trying the Reductio ad Absurdum ploy again.
          Realistically, the proof either way is in your actions. Recall that it is your —BEHAVIOR— that is used to determine whether you are male or female. Just the very fact that you keep harping about this instead of addressing what you could easily do is —DEFLECTING—. That you immediately, and without foundation, think that being seen as a woman is “negative” is presumptuous. That you frequently embellish things (or outright misrepresent them) in order to ridicule it is fallacious. Really, “Dannius” those are all things that hurt women do (as in hurt by having their narrative shown to be falsely founded). Men tend to try and win the argument itself. I don’t see you refuting the reference to Charles Taylor (again, it was used to support the aptness of identifying —LIES— and —LIARS—). No. We all see you trying to conflate that as if was used to support the deduction that you are a woman (which it clearly was not.)
          You are what you act as. Heck, even if you were physiologically male, your BEHAVIOR here is absolutely “female”.
          *****
          —–I’m not going to gather IP info from Jim et al. to prove my posts come from a different location.—–
          Another red herring there, Dannius?
          Again, whether you want it to or not, your behavior determines a lot. No one asked for some “I.P. Address” proof, nor is it really proof since I.P. Addresses are easy to spoof. That you collude with “Jim H” is obvious due to how you allow him all sorts of liberties while denying anyone who opposes him of even uttering a word if they detect his is telling lies.
          *****
          —–The fact that you think you have proved anything sheds a poor light on already poor arguments.—–
          I’ve built some compelling cases, and by the responses I have received, many agree with that assessment. You can pretend that I have nothing substantial but you are done nothing, absolutely —NOTHING— towards supporting that fantasy. It’s all here for all to see. Deny it all you want. At first you just looked foolish. You are now looking far worse.
          *****
          —–Please stop playing games about the sexism. Your comments accusing people of being a woman are usually, as far as I’ve seen, accompanied by negative comments about women.—–
          No, Dannius. It is clearly —YOU— who is playing a “game” here. I’ve already gone over this with you and so you are just posting up a previously debunked concept. You were deemed to be female based on a set of behaviors that make it unlikely that you are male. As far as “negative” comments, you seem to be of the camp that no one can say —ANYTHING— that doesn’t put women on a pedestal (…and I have already mentioned this too). There are times when traits or behaviors that are not relatively stellar need to be mentioned. The truth is often not “nice” (…and have I not already mentioned several times that women, far more than men, think things should be couched “nicely”?)
          Your continued obsession with trying to say that no one should mention certain behaviors that exhibits far more often in women than it does with men is more evidence that you are arguing from emotion. I’ll let everyone decide what your sex is on their own.
          *****
          —–Even if it was a compliment, which is not how you meant it, it’s still sexist. Making generalized statements about women, then applying that to anyone you perceive as sharing a similar trait is closed minded and sexist,—–
          One of the strongest markers that you are indeed a female is in how you need to work claims of “that’s sexist!” into a conversation. OK… you think you have the answer… here you go…
          Women are generally (yes, generally) far more emotional than men are. This manifests (or should I have to say “person-ifests”) often in debates where individuals cannot concede points that they clearly have lost. They will opine their opposition is making “wild claims”, yet completely —IGNORE— the supporting case offered without solicitation. In contrast, they will give —NO EVIDENCE— and even claim that “they don’t have to!” when the same transparency of reasoning is asked of them. You have done this over and over again (to the point that it is practically your standard mode of operation).
          Unless you can demonstrate that such a premise, that women are far more emotionally triggered then men, is incorrect, you have —NO FOUNDATION— for claiming that women are not given equal opportunity or treatment. So… “sexist”? NO. Stop trying to invent prejudice where there is not evidence of it.
          Ironically, you effectively claim the privilege of offering nothing but “your word”, while demanding far more substantial proof from your opposition. Stop with your righteous indignation already.
          *****
          —–…and even after seeing how easily you convince yourself, I’m still a bit surprised at how sure you are in your wild accusations.—–
          Until you can provide some valid evidence (yes, even “some” valid evidence) that your opposition was making “wild claims”, you are basically —LYING—. You have not even provided a single case of this after being challenge on far more than one occasion.
          *****
          —–You’re also playing semantics with the hasty argument, and it’s obvious. Disingenuous, dishonest, lying, whatever. You hastily accuse your opposition of dishonesty, regardless of which exact word you use, and the record clearly shows that both here and at LAN.—–
          Really? You are going to try that bit of —DISHONESTY—? Alright then… Here is the first comment to “Phineas”:
          …….[Phineas]”Hmm… That’s not what I’ve seen. Not sure how long you’ve been here, Geezus, but from my experience Jim usually attempts to carry on a civil debate, presenting his case with evidence and reason, which is met with immature insults from several regulars.”…….
          …….[Geezus]That would be disingenuous at best.
          While “Jim” could be continuing a hostile relationship with others, his first “response” to me was nothing but derision and contempt. That is hardly indicative of someone who is an authentic supporter of mature debate. His continued attempts at trying to appear the “victim” (when he is really the intentional assailant) does not support your profile of him……..
          ….and you call that “a hasty argument”? Dannius you are a … —LIAR—. Not only did you not provide the evidence to support your false claim, you pretend that I am “playing a semantics game”. Well, from the evidence I have presented here, I doubt that anyone will see that message to “Phineas” as “a hasty argument”. You’re pathetic, Dannius (and the similarity between “Phineas” and you is remarkable too…)
          *****
          …continued

        63. Part 4.2
          —–It’s clearly become a habit for you, and it’s very lazy debating, which is surprising considering the amount of time you put into this.—–
          Nice try. It’s actually that I spend the time to carefully refute every bit of your subterfuge that bothers you.
          Lazy debating? From a “guy” that either parrots an accusation, or just makes one up without any supporting documentation? Lol. Lol. Lol. Please, Dannius. It is incredible that you can even type that and feel that anyone can’t see how ridiculous you are looking. Really.
          *****
          —–All of that is an aside though. You’re welcome to think I’m a woman and a multi sock fraud if you want, believe it or not I’ve been called worse ;).—–
          Only you try to couch being seen as a woman as a derogatory remark (and you call others “sexist”?)
          As far as masquerading as more than one individual? Well considering the level of —DISHONESTY— you are exhibiting here, that is something that most would not put past you. As far as being called worse… what have I called you? Are you saying that being a slave to your emotions more than men is derogatory? Well, if you feel that way, you can always stop being it. Is someone coercing you to remain this way?
          *****
          —–The point is that LAN doesn’t want conversations based on personal insults, and you can see why right here.—–
          No. The point is that you clearly know that both Charles Taylor and I hold the valid position on what is and what isn’t fallacious Argumentum ad Hominem. Here is the quote again:
          “Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.” Taylor, Charles (1995). “Explanation and Practical Reason”. Philosophical Arguments. Harvard University Press. pp. 34–60. ISBN 9780674664760
          At best, it is your ego that is preventing you from admitting this. Far worse is that you really have no understanding of what constitutes legitimate debate and what is just aiding and abetting propagandists. The very worst is that you are a social justice warrior that has the agenda to promote misinformation. For Live Action News sake, I certainly hope it is the first case.
          *****
          —–If you can work with that, great. If you can’t, okay. There are tons of websites, like this one, where your behavior will apparently be tolerated or even welcome,—–
          Lol. You say that as if I were interested in your site. In reality, your self-righteousness and how you will stoop to —DISHONESTY— to try to “win” a debate makes any site you moderate one that is likely to become nothing but a travesty. You go on to make a disparaging remark about this site at the same time, and you hold yourself out to be a good netizen? Please.
          My behavior? Have an —HONEST— and objective look at this discussion. I present my case with as much supporting evidence as possible. You? All you do is post what amounts to “Nuh-uh!” and then slip in a few passive aggressive insults. I let everyone decide on their own who is dedicated to respectful debate, and who is just trying to “hurt” their opposition when things don’t go their way.
          *****
          —–and we can go our seperate ways.—–
          You are welcome to leave anytime. You can also stay (as long as the good people at ROK decide you can) but what you can’t do is pretend that your “arguments” are valid when they are not.
          So, the challenge AGAIN is this: Provide some case that Charles Taylor, and by association, I, am wrong about how pointing out when people are lying is not necessarily fallacious Argumentum ad Hominem. THAT is ON-TOPIC and should be ever so easy for someone who is actually dedicated to “civil debate”.
          … Let’s see what kind of deflective dishonesty you will come up with next. Your posts here provide a great reference to how social justice warriors are basically closed-minded, self-righteous, “my way or I’ll cut you” types. Good going!

        64. Yes. “Dannius” is actually a moderator on Live Action News.
          “He” is yet another “social justice warrior” Millennial that thinks only “his” (or really, “her”) narrative is right and anyone that challenges that view is to be attacked.
          Look at the level of —DISHONESTY—- that Dannius stoops to. This is the kind of self-righteousness that infects those who think they are “special”. The best part is that -ANYTHING- that doesn’t put women on a pedestal is considered “sexist!!!!” Though it is curious how Dannius evades every challenge to support “his” views…

        65. Those curt ‘goodbye!’s that Dannius posts at the end is completely like a women walking off with her nose in the air. Drama queen or what????

        66. What…the heck is that creepy creature? I like it. 😉
          “Only you try to couch being seen as a woman as a derogatory remark (and you call others “sexist”?)”
          This is what I’m talking about. You gloss over the nature of your accusations, then attempt to flip the script and imply I’m the one being sexist and using logical fallacies. I don’t believe I’ve ever said “smh” before, but seriously man, smh. 😉 Let me help you out: accusing a man of being a woman is universally considered an insult, because A. you’re accusing them of lying if they have claimed to be a man (shocker: Geezus accusing someone of dishonesty!), and B. you are making an accusation regarding an important and personal part of their identity. It’s insulting in the same way it’s insulting to call a woman a man. Don’t believe me? Go ahead, go up to the next woman you encounter and tell her with your most handsome smile, “you look manly today.” Just make sure you’re prepared to receive a proper slap, I’d also recommend wearing a cup just in case. Telling a man he is a woman (or vice versa) is a derogatory remark, not because of anything sexist, but because of the reasons above, and I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know that.
          You say that based on some of the comments you receive, it appears you are making a compelling case. Am I supposed to be surprised? You can make sexist comments on a sexist site and get a million upvotes or agreeing comments in the same way I could go to aliensarethebomb . com, claim I “proved” aliens exist, and get a million upvotes. So?
          It appears though, that you realize how weak your accusations actually are, and you are wisely attempting to shift this into a debate on Charles Taylor – and yet you accuse me of changing the subject? Huh. But okay, let’s discuss Charles Taylor. You used his quote to dismiss my assertion that ad hominem is a fallacy, and also to justify your own ad hominems. Unfortunately for you, your misuse of the quote is obvious. My statement, “ad hominem is itself a fallacy,” is still true. There are exceptions, yes (just like there are exceptions to slippery slope or several other fallacies), but you really think you can invoke Taylor’s quote to justify constantly calling people liars, frauds, women, sock puppets, etc. in online discussions? You really think he’d be proud of his quote being used to justify that behavior? I don’t know much about the man, but somehow I doubt it. This is what we like to call taking a quote out of context. It’s the same thing people do with Bible verses or whatever other source they choose to call on. You can’t blatantly misuse phrases from an authority to justify ridiculous behavior, or in your case, ridiculous accusations.
          You again mentioned that you feel Jim is being given preferential treatment at LAN. I’d again challenge you to prove that, or at least provide some sort of legitimate reason why you think so. I have admittedly not joined the 100% anti-Jim bandwagon at LAN, and have received some flak for it. But I also hold Jim to the same moderation standards as everyone else. As I’ve told you, Jim has many comments on my deleted list, many more than you, many more than LAN’s regular commenters. I’m not seeing a legitimate reason for you to claim otherwise.
          “Oh, and nice try at embellishing there. You are likely in collusion with “Phineas” or “Phineas” was your sock-puppet. You are in collusion with “Jim H” (alternately, “Phineas” was “his” sock-puppet). There isn’t this “You’re this sock-puppet, you’re that sock puppet”. You are basically trying to apply the Reductio ad Absurdum ploy. Weak sauce.”
          Really? How am I embellishing? You have claimed that Phineas is Lachlan, that Jim is Phineas, and that I am Phineas. I’m sure there’s more names I’ve missed, that’s just what I’ve seen myself. I embellished nothing, I don’t have to – your accusations look plenty “Absurdum” all by themselves. Are you recanting some of your accusations or are you trying to water them down to make them appear more reasonable?
          “Lol. You say that as if I were interested in your site. In reality, your self-righteousness and how you will stoop to —DISHONESTY— to try to “win” a debate makes any site you moderate one that is likely to become nothing but a travesty. You go on to make a disparaging remark about this site at the same time, and you hold yourself out to be a good netizen? Please.”
          I assumed you were interested in LAN due to the fact that you, uh, posted there. 😉 And nah, LAN is doing quite well during my moderation, thanks for your concern though. What debate am I trying to “win?” I’m just telling you I know your accusations about me to be false, and that ad hominem based conversations aren’t what we’re looking for at LAN. Nothing to win or lose, just the way it is. Yes, I am criticizing ROK. While this is the only article here I have taken the time to read, it is blatantly sexist, ignorant, and insulting to the many classy, sexy, virtuous, awesome women I know who have tattoos, including my wife. Not cool.

        67. @ Dannius
          It’s quite simple. You cannot justify your prejudice so you try to deflect. I’ve shown how the —HONESTY— of a participant is critical to having people arrive at the truth on a topic. You try make up all sorts of false accusations to say that pointing out —-DISHONESTY— of a party is somehow “insulting” or “personal attack”. You haven’t been able to show that, yet, I have shown that it is not. All you are doing now is trying to save face. You lost. Get over it. But… I’m sure you’ll keep trying till you actually get banned for trolling.
          Part 5.1
          —–What…the heck is that creepy creature? I like it. 😉—–
          That is apparently a “moon bat”. It was requested by a viewer. If you check some of the other responses to my posts here you will see that. No one really cares whether you like it or not, but thanks for sharing…
          *****
          —–[Geezus]”Only you try to couch being seen as a woman as a derogatory remark (and you call others “sexist”?)”
          [Dannius]This is what I’m talking about. You gloss over the nature of your accusations, then attempt to flip the script and imply I’m the one being sexist and using logical fallacies. I don’t believe I’ve ever used “smh” before, but seriously, smh. 😉—–
          Nice try… however, I’m starting to get the inkling that you actually don’t see your rationalization. Could we all be giving you too much credit?
          You have not shown any instance where I have used logical fallacies. Really, you have not. It is becoming apparent that all these things are delusions to protect the denial you have. Shake your head all you want, but the condescending attitude is just your defense mechanism. You need to “feel” you are right.
          You certainly —ARE— the one being sexist when you think that being called female is a derogatory (I already went over this several times … you are just “ignoring and repeating debunked arguments”). I have not “attempted” to “flip the script” on you. What you don’t like is the unpleasant truth that you are actually the one who has intolerant and illogical views. If you were so “right”, you’d be able to form a logical argument to refute me instead of just claiming, “You are wrong!”
          *****
          —–Let me help you out: accusing a man of being a woman is universally considered an insult, because A. you’re accusing them of lying (surprise), if they have claimed to be a man, and B. you are making an accusation regarding an important part of their identity. It’s insulting in the same way it’s insulting to call a woman a man.—–
          Aww…. You’re going to “help me out”… how kind! (Was that being sardonic enough?)
          No. Let’s get the facts straight here. Deducing that you are a woman based on your behavior when you lose a debate is not merely “accusing you” without merit (as you are implying). Evading and not acknowledging when you lose a point, trying to injure the opponent via insult, condescending stance, using fallacious methods, looking at “tone” and trying to use “feelings” as an argument (we will cover a ) — these are not things that men commonly do. They are very frequently applied by women.
          Social justice warriors love to go on and on about “equality” yet look what you just ranted about. You state that a man identifying as a man, and a woman identifying as a woman was an important part of that identity.
          Now, let’s be clear, we are NOT talking about physically, as this all of this is centered on behavior in a debate. Don’t be trying to surreptitiously say, “Oh but what about not having a dick?” That would be out-of-context as the reference to that was about the insult that women often levy at men when they are trying to “injure feelings”.
          Hence you clearly see that men and women are fundamentally different (otherwise “identifying” with one group or the other wouldn’t be as critical as you feel it is). Of course, people often want to identify with whatever they revere (or see as an advantage in a given arena), but that doesn’t mean they are, or even act as that ideal. Your actions are that of a much more emotional being than most men. That you try to call things “sexist” because something said did not elevate women, is a very strong indicator that you identify far more with “feelings”. Do you still feel you are a man? Most reasonable people wouldn’t see it that way.
          If you think it “insulting” that your behavior indicates that you are far more female than male, that is —YOUR— prejudice, not anyone else’s. If your behavior here was that of a man, and you were masquerading as a woman, and if the thread was about an issue that clearly divides by sex, then it too would be pointed out. You are just trying to deflect from that (and not doing a good job at it either).
          *****
          —–Don’t believe me? Go ahead, go up to the next woman you encounter and tell her with your most handsome smile, “you look manly today.” Just make sure you’re prepared to receive a proper slap, I’d also recommend wearing a cup just in case.—–
          Seriously, Dannius do you realize just how fallacious that “argument” is? Really, do you?
          That is in the vein of the fallacy of an “appeal to emotions”. How people take the truth in no way changes the truth being told. It would be no different than saying, go walk up to a mafia boss, a one percenter, or some other felon and say, “You’re a criminal and a menace to society” (use your best “smile” too). Just be prepared to be fighting for your life. Oh, and I’d recommend you wear body armor too! How about going up to an ISIS insurgent and telling him, “You’re a fundamentalist and self-righteous”. What? That you’d be eating 20 rounds of 9mm means “the allegation is false”?
          No one disagrees that women will often take unpleasant truths badly, but the truth is not altered by their reaction. Do you even understand that? Seriously. Do you?
          Another unpleasant truth that is revealed by your example is how, here in our “modern society” that gives women so much privilege that you can openly talk about how women can apply physical battery and effectively feel entitled to not fear reprisal in kind. Can you imagine if a man said what you said but reversed the roles. You’d be crying “You misogynist!!! How dare you make it sound like it is OK to strike a woman!” If anything, this is just a way for you to fantasize about the punishment you see befitting of those who say anything “negative” about any given woman. Really, your prejudice and entitled attitude is showing.
          *****
          —–Telling a man he is a woman (or vice versa) is a derogatory remark, not because of anything sexist, but because of the reasons above, and I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know that.—–
          You tried to say it was a sexist remark, but to this point, you have been unable to effectively challenge my refutation that it is clearly —NOT— sexist to indicate how one’s behavior can be, and really is, an effective predictor of their sex.
          Now, you are trying to deflect this into how it is inflammatory to the point that you feel women are “justified” in trying to physically injure or maim a man (yes, sports cups are meant for men so it is implied) to identify how someone is behaving by sex. That sounds a lot like a deflection does it not? As such, you are just trying to justify your hostility and, by now, obvious fixation on this determination.
          In reality, social justice warriors often use this type of deceit (masquerading as a man) to give an aura of credence to their message. This is especially apparent on subject matter that is highly polarized by sex. That you make your feelings (“I’m offended!”) such a big part of your “argument”… well… come on… what do you expect people to think which sex you belong to.) You’ve tried to provoke me with personal insults on many occasions… you don’t see the same “My feelings! Oh. My feelings!” People’s reactions are often very telling of things. Somehow I don’t think you see that. Physiologically “male”? No one is talking physiologically. Behaviorally? Yes. You act every bit the woman.
          *****
          —–You say that based on some of the comments you receive, it appears you are making a compelling case. Am I supposed to be surprised? You can make sexist comments on a sexist site and get a million upvotes or agreeing comments in the same way I could go to aliensarethebomb . com, claim I “proved” aliens exist, and get a million upvotes. So?—–
          Your contempt for anyone that agrees with your opposition is expected.
          You merely rationalize any consensus with the “other side” as necessarily “sexist”. That’s really a circular argument based on your prejudice that “you are right”. Really, Dannius. The obligation was to prove your arguments wrong, and I have done that. Your continued evasion (yes, you don’t acknowledge defeat and simply move on to another facet with some deflective “argument”) is a window into a very fragile ego. We didn’t intend to tear apart your character, but it is you that keeps trying to use it as a shield. I’ve mentioned before, that such defense will be collaterally destroyed.
          I get votes from many individuals. I’ve even gotten votes from those who initially were quite hostile and opposed to me until they gained the clarity of sober thoughts. In —CONTEXT— you challenged the pervasiveness of my concepts. I answered that by drawing attention to the unsolicited support I have received. You are now trying to discredit that support with … drum roll… unsupported allegations that the support have the agenda of promoting sexist views. You’re not anywhere near as intellectual as you think, and you are definitely wrong on all the points you tried to argue here.
          *****
          —–It appears though, that you realize how weak your accusations actually are, and you are wisely attempting to shift this into a debate on Charles Taylor – and yet you accuse me of changing the subject?—–
          WOW! You are really —DISHONEST— aren’t you?
          In particular, I just went over how you attempted to conflate the reference to Charles Taylor as support for how your behavior is far more likely that of a woman. You were refuted. Now, you are trying to say that I’m trying to “change the topic”? No. In order for that to be true, I’d be avoiding one topic and moving to the next. The record shows that I addressed both topics, and, like now will cover every error that you make (much to your consternation as it seems). Yes, you —TRIED— to falsely imply that I used Charles Taylor to defend one thing and not the other. You were wrong, and I proved it.
          If anything, this latest bit of pure —DISHONESTY— on your part shows how weak your self-image is. Really Dannius, that was about as —-DISHONEST— as it gets. You really have little credibility left when you try this kind of weak play.
          *****
          —–Huh. But okay, let’s discuss Charles Taylor. You used his quote to dismiss my assertion that ad hominem is a fallacy, and also to justify your own ad hominems.—–
          Yes, as it was used to demonstrate that I am far from alone in my interpretation of what constitutes the fallacy of “Argumentum ad Hominem” and what does not. Here it is again:
          …..“Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.” Taylor, Charles (1995). “Explanation and Practical Reason”. Philosophical Arguments. Harvard University Press. pp. 34–60. ISBN 9780674664760 …..
          *****
          —–Unfortunately for you, your misuse of the quote is obvious. My statement, “ad hominem is itself a fallacy,” is still true. There are exceptions, yes, but you really think you can invoke Taylor’s quote to justify constantly calling people liars, frauds, women, sock puppets, etc. in online discussions?—–
          Really, Dannius, you can’t possibly be that lacking in reading comprehension.
          The very premise that Taylor upholds is that the identification of lying, habitual lying, fraudulent presentation, misrepresentation, misinformation, impersonation to gain credibility, etc… are all valid reasons for exploring the character, and thereby the agenda, of an applicant.
          It is unlikely that you don’t understand it, that Taylor correctly encapsulated it, and that I have correctly applied it. It is more likely that your inability to admit fault makes you clutch at straws to justify your initial stance. Be a big “man”. Get over it. If people cannot call others out for purposely promoting misconceptions, the truth is easily hidden by a forest of lies.
          Get over yourself, Dannius. Stop bringing your ego into a debate.
          …continued

        68. Part 5.2
          *****
          —–You really think he’d be proud of his quote being used to justify that behavior? Somehow I doubt it.—–
          I’ve already gone over the exactly why impersonation, misrepresentation, and habitual lying are completely valid reasons to examine and submit the record of a party’s conduct in the very post you are responding to. All you are doing is your usual, “Ignore refutation and repeat your same debunked false assertion”.
          Would Taylor be proud of how I correctly applied his reasoning? Probably. Go ask him.
          *****
          —–This is what we like to call taking a quote out of context. It’s the same thing people do with Bible verses or whatever other source they respect. You can’t blatantly misuse phrases from an authority to justify ridiculous behavior, or in your case, ridiculous accusations.—–
          Lol. What you are trying to describe is really, “invalid application”. “Out of context” implies that there are additional mitigating or qualifying conditions that are speciously omitted. What? Like I have to clarify —YOUR— criticisms for you?
          Of course, I have not invalidly applied what Taylor sets forth. I hereby CHALLENGE you to show exactly how my application is not aligned with what Taylor describes as valid use of examining the behavior and therefore the agenda of an applicant . If you do —NOT— answer this challenge (and just saying, “you’re making ridiculous claims!” is not an argument, it is merely an unsupported — and spurious — opinion) then you have —LOST—this point. No more evasion, Dannius. Present a reasonable and somewhat comprehensive refutation, or by default, admit you are defeated.
          *****
          —–[Geezus]”Lol. You say that as if I were interested in your site. In reality, your self-righteousness and how you will stoop to —DISHONESTY— to try to “win” a debate makes any site you moderate one that is likely to become nothing but a travesty. You go on to make a disparaging remark about this site at the same time, and you hold yourself out to be a good netizen? Please.”
          [Dannius]I assumed you were interested in LAN due to the fact that you, uh, posted there. 😉
          —–
          It was self-evident that my initial post on Live Action News was directed specifically to Shep, and that “Jim H” imposed himself on that conversation under the excuse that “he” was being talked about behind his back (even though how being in plain sight is hardly behind one’s back). Therefore, most reasonable people would have figured out that I was, uh, not there because of Live Action News, but to converse with Shep.
          Uh, Nice try.
          *****
          —–And nah, LAN is doing quite well under my moderation, thanks for your concern though.—–
          Lol. If you call the lack of participation on the very thread you tried to get your version of a “civil” debate going as “doing quite well”, then your standard is lower than most.
          Seriously, Dannius, Live Action News’ reputation has probably been damaged by your biased adjudication. You can lie to yourself all you want, but when have I ever said or suggested that I cared about how Live Action News is doing. In fact, I think I mentioned at least a few times that I am quite indifferent to it.
          *****
          —–What debate am I trying to “win?” I’m just telling you I know your accusations about me to be false, and that ad hominem based conversations aren’t what we’re looking for at LAN.—–
          Really? All your evasion (yes, you always avoid what you cannot refute, and just move onto another fallaciously based attempt at a rebuttal) shows you are trying to appear like you are “winning” the debate. That is very obvious. You get your arguments neutralized and you just pretend that it wasn’t.
          That you cannot take up the challenge to prove, with valid reasoning, how I am not adhering to Charles Taylor’s concept of when delving into the behavior, character, and history of a participant shows that even you know you cannot win that contention. Your passive aggressive insults indicate that you lost and intend to “injure” your opposition in an act of retaliation in lieu of “winning”.
          This is a particular problem with social justice warriors. They think that cheating (like suppressing any challenge of the veracity of those who clearly choose to promote misinformation) is justified if it supports their own agenda. You prove this by how you are obviously a sycophant of “Jim H”. Dannius, you fool no one (not even yourself).
          *****
          —–Nothing to win or lose, just the way it is.—-
          No. “Phineas” tried to win via pseudo-intellectualism on your site and failed. You stepped in under the false premise that you were trying to promote “civil” debate. You came here with the misguided belief that you were going to prove that you were unbiased and dedicated to such “civil” debate. That is what you were trying to win.
          You were so self-assured that you wagered your reputation. That is what you also lost. Yes. That’s just the way it is.
          *****
          —–Yes, I am criticizing ROK.—–
          No!!! Really??? I’m Shocked! … lol.
          *****
          —–While this is the only article here I have taken the time to read, it is blatantly sexist, ignorant,—–
          Oh, of course. Yet another one of your self-righteous “opinions”. I CHALLENGE you to offer up an actual argument that this article is “sexist” or ignorant. Let me guess, “You don’t have to”. Lol. You’re a —FRAUD— Dannius. All you know to do is to make unsupported accusations, and use that to justify your righteous indignation.
          *****
          —–…and insulting to the many classy, sexy, virtuous, awesome women I know who have tattoos, including my wife.—–
          No one ever said that the truth will not be “insulting” to some. In fact, your fixation on the “feelings” of those that come across this tells a lot about what you really are.
          The flaws in your logic there are…. __1__ No one has said or suggested that the relationship between tattoos and the underlying traits mentioned in this article is always the case. However, it is usually the case (to varying degrees). Tell us all how stamping your “feelings” on your arm, shoulder, where-ever isn’t a sign that you think your “feelings” are self-important. Remember we are talking about the women who do this. __2__ Women who DON’T get tattoos are, as a group far more classy and virtuous that those who do. There are scientific studies that prove this. What? Are you going say it’s “out-of-context” now? Lol. __3__ “Sexy” and “Awesome” are far more subjective than what you pretend it isn’t. Men as a group align with this article. Your special feelings are not valid as a counter argument to that. You’re basing your argument on “feelings”…. And you think you are being “logical”? Most of your arguments are EMOTIONAL. Really, Dannius, everyone sees right through you.
          *****
          —–Not cool.—–
          Lol. That’s yet another of your opinions based on “emotion”. I agree though, you lost your cool long ago.
          Now?
          All you are doing is trying to save face. Really, Dannius, you lost the argument the moment you thought you were so righteous. You are not. You are misguided like every social justice warrior out there. If you were so “right” about things, you wouldn’t have to resort to all these fallacious methods. You are not fooling anyone… but keep trying!

        69. Thanks! I try to be as congenial as possible. “guys” like Dannius suffer from very low self-esteem and will stop at nothing to try to “win”.

        70. Come on Dannius. Geezus is freakin’ owning your azz. He’s right about the necessity of calling out bad moves like *lying* or not being honest. You can’t cover that up.

        71. Yeah, absolutely! Geezus has clearly proved I’m a woman, a liar, and a sock puppet beyond all doubt! *sarcasm off
          Aaaand that’s the problem right there. It’s difficult to argue that calling out lying is “necessary” while simultaneously throwing out unproven and absurd accusations left and right. It’s kind of self-defeating, actually. But your opinion on the matter was predictable. 🙂
          Anyway, after I’m finished with Geezus, I’m planning on redirecting my time away from pointless debates on sexist websites with hostile commenters, so I’d really not like to start another right now. Care to be classy enough to let me and Geezus wrap this up as men (oh wait, I’m not a man hahaha), or are you gonna be that guy that piles on when two guys are goin at it?

        72. …Bruised egos…

          Frankly I am surprised this Dannius woman hasn’t been banned. Rok is lenient, but telling the same lies repetitively usually gets the hook. I guess the weather’s been good so the mods have other things to do.

        73. It appears my comment did not go through. If this is a double comment, my bad.
          I’d love to debate the tattoo article – with someone who can do more that yell “LIAR” 84.5 million times. If you care to learn civil debate, you have a deal.
          As I said, you can yap about this for years if you want, invoke Harvard authorities and place a logical fallacy sticker on everything, it still won’t change that your accusations are false. Your point that calling out lying is necessary is clearly self-defeating when accompanied by ridiculous accusations. Even calling someone disingenuous after they disagree with you in a civil fashion is not conducive to civil discussion, but then you have to go add a host of absurd allegations about gender, character, and sock puppets. I would not infer that you are lying, you appear to legitimately believe them, but I personally know them to be false. As we already discussed, I’m not going to try to prove my gender or IP status, so yes, you’re just getting a “nuh-uh,” or an “ok ;)”.
          The way you’re using Taylor is not very classy. In my opinion, you’re clearly misusing the quote. I respect that you disagree with that, but you’re missing the obvious fact that after seeing that your accusations about my womanhood are false, any reasonable human being would agree that you have used an inappropriate and inaccurate ad hominem.
          So, you still have been going to LAN? I thought you weren’t interested? Or did you go there just to check on my experiment? I’m flattered, but regardless, the failed experiment enabled me to engage with several of our respected commenters, hopefully lighten the mood in several instances, and otherwise encourage civil debate. I’ll take that anyday. 🙂
          You keep saying I’m trying to insult you. That has not been my goal. As I said, I made a few frustrated comments, which I apologize for (I am the one advocating civil discussion, and should set a high bar for myself). I disagree with your arguing style, I know your accusations – at least the ones about me – to be false, and I intend to maintain my boss’s standards of moderation at LAN. No hostility or ill will in that whatsoever, just the way it is.
          Hopefully we can wrap this up soon. It’s no skin off my teeth if you want to maintain that I’m a woman, that I’m Jim et al., and whatever else you wish to allege. It doesn’t appear to be any skin off your teeth that I intend to maintain a civil standard of debate at LAN. So – do you need to keep going around and around about this for some reason, or can you wrap this up in a final statement or something and let’s both move on? I’ll even give you the last word. If you agree to wrap this up, you could make a final statement, I’ll make a final response, and you close it out with a final – final statement. 😉 Would you prefer a different format, or how does that sound?

        74. Actually you prove that you’re hardly a man with your continuous crying about being called a woman. Most guys would just focus on the real issue. That issue is how you are wrong about how you think there isn’t the need to point out liars and bullcrap when it is being used. You’re just trying to draw attention away from it.
          When you are finished with Geezus? His arguments have beaten up your arguments so badly, it is wonder that there isn’t a freaking national day of mourning for your sad little attempts.
          Guys piling in when two people are going at it? You mean like how Phineas McWhinius did when Jim H was losing to Geezus, or, like how you piled on when Phineas was barely left standing??? Hypocrisy much??? Classy? You haven’t earned the right to lecture others on that.

        75. Yeh, I wonder about that too. Spammius Alotomus seems to think that repeating the same lies again and again is *civil* debate. It is fun to watch Danielle get beaten by Geezus.

        76. Oh, also, side note. I do agree with your statements on violence from women. My example was meant to be a joke, at least to some degree. I have known men who are with violent women and it’s not okay, nor is it funny. So perhaps my joke/example was in poor taste. 🙂

        77. Do you want your comments reinstated? King Fork was unaware that they were removed!

        78. What will be funny, is that RE will eventually have a better Disqus rep than ER.

        79. Dr. Thomas would definitely be a good guy to check with. The old you doesn’t like him, but I’m sure the new you is less grating and will get along just fine.

        80. Miss Infa, if that is you, you are always nice! King and EVERYONE who has a brain loves you! That’s obvious!

        81. You’re probably getting ejected for spamming, here is my response to your whining answer that you posted on your site…….
          It’s *your* response that is disingenuous and passively hostile, troll.
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liveactionnews/a_pro_lifer8217s_view_on_paid_family_leave/#comment-2724316908
          Your point exactly? Bullshit. Geezus is right, your *method* of arguing is to purposely take things out of context and *straw-man* away. The point was that you’re the one getting all worked up about being seen as a woman, instead of trying to make a case about how you think people *shouldn’t* be pointing out lying when they see it. If you don’t think it’s that important you wouldn’t keep bringing it up. Lying includes pretending to be something, making shit up, etc. Your kind of deceitful approach is not welcome anywhere.
          Your *memory* is kind of bad then. Phineas totally *engaged* Geezus when JimH was backed into a corner. Context? The context was that Phineas was the third party in. That’s what you were talking about. Crikey, you are dishonest. If Geezus said Phineas was disingenuous, he would have backed it up like he always does. The Anti-Jim *band wagon* is anyone that doesn’t like trolls. Majority? You’re the freakin’ mod there and you protect Jim H. You and Phineas were the third-person-in, so you were the one’s piling on.
          All you do is call people “classless” and “hostile” or say their arguments are “ridiculous”. You don’t even try to back it up. You just say it. You call this site “sexist” but I doubt if you can prove that. You’re the one trying to bash anyone that calls you or Jim or Phineas out. Geezus beat you in every debate you tried here and you are just being a sore loser. I can see it and so can a lot of others. You’re a mod? That doesn’t say much for any site that gives you that title.

        82. Dannius can’t help “him”-self. Bruised egos makes fools out of many a social justice warrior.

        83. @ Dannius
          You’re basically a closed-minded and self-righteous ranter, Dannius. All you’ve done is to evade anything you can’t debate (and that is practically everything). You then post up some deflective “opinion” and think that you have successfully refuted something…. NOT. You’re a —DISHONEST— individual who is clearly trying to promote the social justice agenda. As a moderator, you are a —FRAUD—. Live Action News is a far worse because of your clear bias. Here’s the refutation of your latest rant…
          Part 6.1
          —–It appears my comment did not go through. If this is a double comment, my bad.—–
          Disqus isn’t the greatest application. Sometimes it gets confused… or maybe people are getting tired of your Argumentum ad Nauseam.
          *****
          —–I’d love to debate the tattoo article – with someone who can do more that yell “LIAR” 84.5 million times. If you care to learn civil debate, you have a deal.——
          Nice try. No one has “yelled liar” anymore that was required. Essentially you are trying to dismiss the apt determination that you yourself evade by telling half-truths (like you are doing now) or complete falsehoods. Really, Dannius, you need to step back and realize that most people can see that you do this.
          “Learn civil debate”? That is exactly the passive aggressive personal attack that you pretend you don’t do. In this case it is a delivery of an insult via condescending advice.
          Oh, and as far as the Tattoo article, it’s already been discussed, and not a single detractor has been able to come up with any scientific study that refutes the studies that HAVE been done that show the concept of this article is correct. Save yourself some time, just come up with a scientific study that refutes it. I CHALLENGE you.
          *****
          —–As I said, you can yap about this for years if you want, invoke Harvard authorities and place a logical fallacy sticker on everything, it still won’t change that your accusations are false.—–
          Lol. No one will disagree that you have “said it” (at infinitum too), but Charles Taylor was referenced because it was an easy way to demonstrate the scholarly view on the issue. You can’t refute it so you try to dismiss it as irrelevant (which it clearly is not).
          Logically fallacies “stickers” are adhered to what is carefully identified as logical fallacy. You can try to obfuscate that by suggesting that there is no such process, but the record shows you are clearly —LYING—. There you go again with “your accusations are false”. That is just stating an “opinion” conveniently without a single bit of foundation or reference. Really, Dannius, do you even have any experience in debating?
          *****
          —–Your point that calling out lying is necessary is clearly self-defeating when accompanied by ridiculous accusations.—–
          ROFLTMAO!!! Do you not even see the contradiction in your “reasoning” there?
          You say that a person that promotes the mandate of “identifying lies” (and therefore showing that such conduct reflects the credibility of the issuer) is affected by the conduct of said person. So you agree that the body of one’s work is vital to one’s assertions, yet you attempt to bar that submission (but apparently, not if it supports your views). Really, Dannius, this type of faulty logic does not do your case much good.
          Again, you claim “ridiculous accusations” but, even when explicitly challenged to do so, you have provided not even one legitimate example of how there has been a “ridiculous accusation” levied against you. Yes, you do behave every bit the person arguing from “hurt feelings”. Do you think many people will see you as a “man”?
          Just in case you are not clear on this, the identification of LYING and especially habitual LYING is very crucial to discovering the truth. Witness with agendas are rarely purveyors of reality.
          *****
          —–Even calling someone disingenuous after they disagree with you in a civil fashion is not conducive to civil discussion—–
          Please. When people are being “disingenuous” they are, definition, being purposely deceitful. It is common that those who choose that route, will resort to “righteous indignation” as a defense. In this way, any disagreement can be met with conveniently justified hostility (i.e. “I will call you uncivil, your arguments ridiculous, your paparazzi sexist, your manhood cheap, etc…”).
          Again, you conflate the delivery (i.e. the bows, ribbons and box) being “civil” as mitigation for repeating lies, lightly hidden insults, or anything else that one can stuff inside a wooden equine before the walls of Troy. No. The “civility” of delivery is not the issue, but, rather the contents of that livery. If malicious, and deliberate falsehood is very much ill intent, then that effigy shall be burnt to the ground.
          Phineas was as civil as any common con artist would be, and as “not to be” as expected. Alas, poor McClintock, I neutered him well.
          *****
          —–…, but then you have to go add a host of absurd allegations about gender, character, and sock puppets. I would not infer that you are lying, you appear to legitimately believe them, but I personally know them to be false.—–
          While you cling onto your disingenuous opinion that the allegations are “absurd”, you have never been able to provide a single bit of support for such a claim: Not even when requested.
          The reasoning on how it is determined that you behave every bit the hurt woman has been given to you many times. Not only do you not acknowledge it, you just pretend that you have not seen it. The character of a participant is critical to the credibility of his or her assertions. That is hardly an “absurd” notion and it has been explained to you many, many times too. Sock puppetry, like collusion, is a method that unscrupulous individuals use to create an illusion of greater support for their notions. It is clear that you do this and it is clear that you are trying to dismiss any mention of it.
          Really? You “personally” know “Jim H” is a man? You “personally” know that “Phineas McClintock” is not “Jim H”. Even as a moderator, all you see is whatever I.P. Address and email that someone uses. That doesn’t mean a person cannot use different I.P. Addresses and email addresses. Most people realize this in 2016.
          *****
          —–As we already discussed, I’m not going to try to prove my gender or IP status, so yes, you’re just getting a “nuh-uh,” or an “ok ;)”.—–
          Just as it was already discussed that no one asked you to provide an I.P. Address or legal documentation of your sex. You are merely trying to create the illusion that people are asking for such things by implying that they did. You’re a very —DISHONEST— individual, Dannius. Far more —DISHONEST— than most trolls.
          *****
          —–The way you’re using Taylor is not very classy.—–
          Your level of desperation is becoming quite apparent, Dannius.
          While you can hold whatever opinion you what on the nobleness of quoting an authority in a field, I hereby CHALLENGE you instruct all of us how such action is unwarranted, let alone contemptible. Like the plethora of challenges put forth to you, this will likely be met with evasion or silence.
          *****
          —–In my opinion, you’re clearly misusing the quote.—–
          It was a matter of time before you retreated to the standard, “in my opinion” disclaimer (as no one else can effectively say it “isn’t” your opinion). However, that is all it is. As before, I CHALLENGE you to provide some semblance of an argument as to why you “feel” that I am misrepresenting Taylor. Do not say it is because you are making “personal insults” as that is using more “opinion” to support an “opinion”.
          *****
          —–I respect that you disagree with that, but then you say I should ask Taylor if he would approve of your use. We can argue all day about whether he would or wouldn’t,—–
          No. Your rhetorical, whether Taylor with be proud of my interpretation, was answered. You have no counterpoint as usual.
          *****
          …continued

        84. Part 6.2
          —–…you’re missing the obvious fact that after seeing that your accusations about my womanhood are false, any reasonable human being would agree that you have used an inappropriate and inaccurate ad hominem.—–
          No. You are an extremely —DISHONEST— individual, Dannius. Your constant attempts at straw man arguments are signs that your self-esteem is so fragile that you cannot stand it when you lose.
          Firstly, my assertion is that, by your behavior (and the details have been relayed to you many times before) it is unlikely that you are actually male. Even if you are physiologically male, your attitude, your dishonesty in trying to seem “right”, and your constant need to try to “injure the feelings” of your opponent in a debate is very much that of a young woman. Men are far more about winning without that kind of cheating as being gallant is a mandate (and “winning” and retaliation is much more the agenda of certain “scorned” individuals.)
          Secondly, the CONCEPT of the necessity to expose DISHONEST BEHAVIOR (misinformation, personal attack, fallacious arguments and generally deceitful practices) transcends any specific assertion. In particular, “Jim H” has a history of resorting to personal attack when challenged, Phineas McClintock was basically a troll (he is now removed him/her-self from existence though). These are things that need to be exposed if the truth is to have any chance of being revealed in a discussion. You cannot surreptitiously hold these for ransom because you “feel” that an assertion about you, in particular, is not correct.
          Thirdly, whether or not there were indiscretions on my part does not mean the concept of exposing bad behavior is to be rejected. That is non-sequitur.
          Your logic is extremely poor even in light of how you are just trying to “win”. Really, Dannius, stop over-estimating the effectiveness of a soft degree in the Arts. It is proving to be wholly inadequate towards critical thinking.
          *****
          —–So, you still have been going to LAN? I thought you weren’t interested? Or did you go there just to check on my experiment? I’m flattered, but regardless, the failed experiment enabled me to engage with several of our respected commenters, hopefully lighten the mood in several instances, and otherwise encourage civil debate. I’ll take that anyday. 🙂—–
          No. I pass through it when I upvote comments of some, but any site that employs someone like you as a moderator would be far down the list of sites I will take seriously. Your hubris is unwarranted as usual.
          Your attempt to create the illusion of a civil debate failed mainly because it is an illusion. You clearly favor “Jim H” and, by your participation here, have no real concept of what “civil” debate really is. You still unwittingly believe that “civil” delivery regardless of how one can “civilly” lie or apply all sorts of fallacious methods, will generate productive discourse. Not only that, you allow certain individuals the freedom to attack others (be it by convenient ignorance or deliberate interference). You are a DISGRACE to not just Live Action News, but to the Internet community at large.
          *****
          —–You keep saying I’m trying to insult you. Short of a few comments I made out of frustration, which I apologize for (I am the one advocating civil discussion, and should set a high bar for myself), that has absolutely not been my goal.—–
          Oh spare us all the coy attitude. You use passive aggressive techniques to levy insults (e.g. “Learn civil debate”) You are not fooling anyone. You insult the intelligence of all when you apply the straw man arguments and other deflective methods. It’s not just me. Others see your —DISHONESTY— too.
          Your main goal? Your goal is to try to appear like you are winning. Curiously you have not taken up any of the simple CHALLENGES that would actually give you far more credibility than all the evasive action you have taken. You’re a —FRAUD— Dannius. You don’t actually support real debate, you support a narrative that is shared by propagandists like “Jim H”. You defend that narrative by whatever underhanded method at your disposal. Any argument against you is “ridiculous”, Any group that agrees is “sexist”, blah, blah, blah. It’s pathetic.
          *****
          —–I disagree with your arguing style,—–
          Let’s see, I make an assertion, back up that assertion with evidence and/or reasoning, and submit it. Furthermore that assertion is on-topic (and pointing out when someone is being dishonest or has a habit of such is on-topic). I avoid insults and name-calling as much as possible, even when they are incessantly levelled at me. Yeah… it’s such a horrible “style”. Get real, Dannius. You are about as —DISHONEST— as it gets.
          *****
          —–I know your accusations – at least the ones about me – to be false, and I intend to maintain my boss’s standards of moderation at LAN. No hostility or ill will in that whatsoever, just the way it is.—–
          No. Again, the assertion is that, by your behavior (the evasiveness, the constant use of fallacious methods, the inability to admit fault, the need to attack “feelings”, the clear bias in the administration of civility enforcement, etc…) is far more that of a woman than a man. Effectively, you are a woman Online. If you believe that to be “false” you have offered no evidence to support your case.
          It is clear you intend to maintain your favoritism in your domain. While that may satisfy some conditions set forth by Live Action News, it stands to reason that any forum site that wishes to be seen as a fair arena, would not be served well by your administration. No hostility? Untrue. You allow all sorts of passive aggressive hostility from those you protect, and they alone can insult and harass others. There has been much evidence of this witness by many.
          You are essentially the typical closed-minded, self-righteous and underhanded social justice warrior and unfit to be moderating any site. THAT is just the way it is.
          *****
          —–Hopefully we can wrap this up soon. It’s no skin off my teeth if you want to maintain that I’m a woman, that I’m Jim et al., and whatever else you wish to allege.—-
          Lol. You can claim whatever indifference you want, but the constant harping about how you are not a woman screams of “The lady dost protest too much, methinks”. Not only that, you try to couch that allegation as it were one of many other frivolous accusations. It was not. Nice try.
          As far as Jim H, it is basically maintained that you work in collusion with that poster. To that you have offer no valid refutation of how you favor his clear Argumentum ad Hominem. Phineas was likely you as he curiously removed all traces of “himself” in and around the time you took up the challenge to “him” to debate me here. He also writes like you, lies like you, and used you as support for “his” position. Other allegations? Any allegation made has been offered with full and transparent reasoning. You have rarely, as in NEVER, done anything remotely as honest.
          *****
          —–It doesn’t appear to be any skin off your teeth that I intend to maintain a civil standard of debate at LAN.—–
          I definitely don’t care what you think you are doing at Live Action News. It’s just like I don’t care what XOJane.com does either.
          *****
          —–So – do you need to keep going around and around about this for some reason, or can you wrap this up in a final statement or something and let’s both move on? I’ll even give you the last word. If you agree to wrap this up, you could make a final statement, I’ll make a final response, and you close it out with a final – final statement. 😉 Would you prefer a different format, or how does that sound?—–
          You seem to have the same delusion that Phineas had. Like “Phineas”, you think that any counter, regardless of how nonsensical, is graded as roughly equal in impact. You see this as a back-and-forth, yet it really is I presenting a reasoned and reasonable position, and you merely saying “nah! That is ridiculous”.
          As I said at least several posts ago, you can easily provide a legitimate counter by producing a similar scholarly reference that refutes what Charles Taylor states. Pretending that I have “misrepresented” Taylor only works if you can effectively demonstrate that I have (and you definitely have not). In regards to how you act as a scorned woman? The evidence is there. The biggest factor is your incessant use of fallacious methods to deflect from what you cannot logical debate —- it is rare that a man would choose such a path in a contest of reasoning (most men know that people see evasion as very childish and cowardly). Don’t kid yourself that others are not experienced with Online conversations. Even if you were physiologically a “man”, you definitely do not act like one.
          You needn’t worry about disengaging though. It does seem that you are starting to get the attention of moderators here. They will probably end your “reign of error” here soon.

        85. Haha 🙂 I’d take being ejected from ROK as a compliment.
          Worked up about being seen as a woman? Actually I could not care less if people think I’m a woman, a man, Barack Obama, or a martian. I just find it to be a silly argument, and further proof that people who feel the need to constantly use ad hominems discredit their own arguments with their own silliness. You seem to have missed that me getting “worked up” about it would require someone asserting that I am a woman, which is, yeah you guessed it – off topic.
          Your version of Geezus vs. Phineas is quite inaccurate, check the record. Phineas was not the third party, Geezus had already involved others by talking about Jim to them. You can say what you want but Phineas calmly offered an opinion, and Geezus responded with ad hominems. It is what it is.
          As moderator, I don’t protect any single person, I protect the overall quality of conversation at LAN, to which you are choosing to contribute nothing. While, as I psychology student, I have thoroughly enjoyed chatting with you, I’m not going to give this sexist site any more traffic than I already have, after I wrap up with Geezus. I’m also not going to give any more of my attention to your hostile communication. If you care to have a reasonable, relevant, and civil discussion I always open to that. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy your weekend, and the last word is yours. Farewell. 🙂

        86. “Let’s see, I make an assertion, back up that assertion with evidence and/or reasoning, and submit it. Furthermore that assertion is on-topic (and pointing out when someone is being dishonest or has a habit of such is on-topic). I avoid insults and name-calling as much as possible, even when they are incessantly levelled at me. Yeah… it’s such a horrible “style”. Get real, Dannius. You are about as —DISHONEST— as it gets.”
          If that is really how you view the way you communicate, I can’t do much to change that. Just so you know, it’s called cognitive distortion, and it’s very difficult to change, particularly when one is unwilling to do so.
          It does not matter how much you try to create the appearance that there is any logic, proof or reasoning behind your accusations about me. They are false, but you will continue to yap about how they are true, or how you provided reasons for why they might be true. You are promoting false accusations, whether or not you realize it. The false accusations, or ad hominems, are the problem here, and the problem will not be solved until you choose to adopt a different style of communication.
          It seems you did not directly answer my offer to close this out via gentleman’s agreement, so I’ll close it out on my end, and you will likely follow up with typical ramblings about dishonesty and womanhood, flavored with some artificial logic. As I told Errant, I am not going to give any more traffic than I already have to this sexist site. As a psychology student, I have found our interaction to be very interesting – even enlightening – regarding communication styles, cognitive distortions, aggression/hostility, and discovering what type of people would be drawn to a sick site like ROK in the first place. Thank you for the opportunity to educate myself, it will improve my ability to understand and truly help future clients. I will not be responding to your hostile and repetitive comments again. If you care to take up a civil debate, let me know. Otherwise, enjoy your weekend, and enjoy your last word. Farewell. 🙂

        87. OK, Dannius Awesomus. You asked for it…….

          Haha 🙂 I’d take being ejected from ROK as a compliment.

          Too funny; more of your “feelings” there, troll? You can act like you don’t care as much as you like, but your butt-hurt is showing.

          Worked up about being seen as a woman? Actually I could not care less if people think I’m a woman, a man, Barack Obama, or a martian.

          …….and another one of your “feelings” responses. No one believes that you aren’t just a hurt little girl. You show that you totally care since you are really trying too hard to tell people about your emotional state.

          I just find it to be a silly argument, and further proof that people who feel the need to constantly use ad hominems discredit their own arguments with their own silliness.

          Right …… you find it to be silly… but every freaking time Geezus asked you to back up your claim of that, you just pretend that your word is good enough. His point makes sense. Pretending to be a guy on a topic like pro-life is kinda critical. A lot of women are very emotionally invested. You are, and it is obvious.
          Besides, Geezus has explained as many times as you tried to falsely call that a fallacy. It is not a fallacy of ad hominem when it shows how that creates some distance from emotional investment.

          You seem to have missed that me getting “worked up” about it would require someone asserting that I am a woman, which is, yeah you guessed it – off topic.

          You seem to be missing the point that it isn’t off-topic as I just said above. Also, you are trying to draw attention to this because you can’t argue back about how you allow Jim H to insult and name-call others, while no one is allowed to even call it out. You are ….. you guessed it …. A very opinionated person who shouldn’t be a moderator.

          Your version of Geezus vs. Phineas is quite inaccurate, check the record. Phineas was not the third party, Geezus had already involved others by talking about Jim to them.

          Are you freakin’ serious? You’re gonna try that crap? I’ve attached a screenshot of the actual first response from Geezus to Phineas. Yes, Phineas deleted her posts and membership, but you can’t cover your tracks so easily. You’re busted, you fraud.
          Geezus is right. You are about the most dishonest poster there is. The “third party” is the “third party” into a conversation. Jim H butted into a conversation between Geezus and Shep. Geezus was then involved in talking to Jim H and vice-versa. When Jim H started getting beaten, Phineas …. Who was probably you …… was the third-party into that. Your attempt to try to re-define what “third party” was is bullshit. You’re quite childish as well as dishonest.

          You can say what you want but Phineas calmly offered an opinion, and Geezus responded with ad hominems. It is what it is.

          Geezus already refuted all this bullshit too. “Calmly offering opinion” doesn’t cover offering lies. You keep trying to gloss over that. Geezus called out Phineas on lying, just like how you get called out on lies.
          You’re a liar and that is what it is.

          As moderator, I don’t protect any single person, I protect the overall quality of conversation at LAN, to which you are choosing to contribute nothing.

          As a moderator you shouldn’t be so blatantly biased. You shouldn’t be biased at all ….. but you are. It has been proven. You’re a fraud, and no one who is about honest discussion will want to contribute to any site you moderate, fraud.

          While, as I psychology student, I have thoroughly enjoyed chatting with you, I’m not going to give this sexist site any more traffic than I already have, after I wrap up with Geezus. I’m also not going to give any more of my attention to your hostile communication.

          Psychology student? AHAhahahAHAH. I knew it. Yet another soft degree big shot that proves “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.
          You enjoyed chatting? More of your “feelings” crap. Who cares about your “feelings” troll? You bigots like to call things “sexist” when you figure out you have no argument. As far as wrapping up with Geezus…. What’s that? When you regain consciousness since he’s sent you to the mat about what, a hundred times.
          Your about as hostile as it comes, troll. Geezus owned you and you now just trying to give excuses. You’re a sore loser as well as a liar.

          If you care to have a reasonable, relevant, and civil discussion I always open to that. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy your weekend, and the last word is yours. Farewell. 🙂

          Reasonable and civil debate? With a fraud like you? All you do is pretend you haven’t had your argument refuted and repeat bullshit. Geezus called you out on that, I called you out on that. You then just say it that is ridiculous and repeat your bullshit.
          You’ve been outed, troll. It is very, very likely that you were Phineas. You have an agenda to push the SJW narrative and you got busted. Last word? What like you won’t just post more of your crap to try and hide your lies. Well…… try it now. After people see the attached screenshot, anyone that doubted you were a lying fraud will see that you are a complete bullshitter.
          You’re done here, troll.

        88. @ Dannius:
          Get lost, troll.
          Part 7.1
          —–[Geezus]”Let’s see, I make an assertion, back up that assertion with evidence and/or reasoning, and submit it. Furthermore that assertion is on-topic (and pointing out when someone is being dishonest or has a habit of such is on-topic). I avoid insults and name-calling as much as possible, even when they are incessantly levelled at me. Yeah… it’s such a horrible “style”. Get real, Dannius. You are about as —DISHONEST— as it gets.”
          [Dannius]If that is really how you view the way you communicate, I can’t do much to change that. Just so you know, it’s called cognitive distortion, and it’s very difficult to change, particularly when one is unwilling to do so.—–
          You are not fooling anyone with that usual bit of subterfuge, Dannius.
          I clearly offer comprehensive and detailed explanations, while in contrast you post mere personal verdict (e.g. “That’s Ridiculous!”, “You’re wrong!”, “This site is sexist!”) and conveniently offer no explanation. You surreptitiously excuse yourself by acting righteously indignant. This is what the typical social justice warrior does when challenged to defend their case.
          In fact, your evasiveness is very much the behavior of someone with “cognitive distortion”. Really, Dannius, if someone was hiding from reality, they would hardly be as open with sharing the reasoning behind deductions as I have. No. Someone trying to hide from the truth would be as guarded as you exhibited. They are not only trying to hide their incapability to justify via logic from others, they are trying to hide it from themselves. That is what you do. You’re deep in denial.
          Trying to change someone? It is your lack of a cohesive and coalesced argument that is the problem for you. You don’t have a case, and your arrogance is nothing more than a defense mechanism to rationalize the realization of that lack. Stop trying to project your reluctance to accept the truth onto those who you oppose.
          *****
          —–It does not matter how much you try to create the appearance that there is any logic, proof or reasoning behind your accusations about me. They are false, but you will continue to yap about how they are true, or how you provided reasons for why they might be true.—–
          Lol!!!
          In reality, it does not matter if you keep pretending that I don’t have a logical argument. Your opinion counts for very little. It is the consensus of the reasonable people witnessing this that counts. You are still trying to focus on the notion that you are actually a physiological female as if the lack of a definitive answer somehow renders —ANY AND EVERY OTHER— notion untrue. That is an associative fallacy. The irony being that, while the association of poor character (such as being —DISHONEST—) is a credible reason to doubt the veracity of a witness’ recollections, the fault of one argument cannot be so readily transferred.
          Furthermore, you have alleged my arguments to be not based on logic, yet you have not even attempted to show how you arrive at that. You’ve been challenged —MANY TIMES— to offer some explanation. In as many times, you just evade and repeat the unfounded allegation.
          Finally, I offer many palpable reasons, that in concert, point to the scenario that you are a woman posing as a man. Your clear —DISHONESTY— and latent hostility tells us all that you are an emotionally triggered one too.
          *****
          —–You are promoting false accusations, whether or not you realize it. The false accusations, or ad hominems, are the problem here, and the problem will not be solved until you choose to adopt a different style of communication.—–
          If you are referring to the allegation that you are acting in a very feminine way, then you are wrong. It is not “false”, not even by any stretch of the imagination, that your illogical and essentially emotional rant is what we usually see from hurt young women.
          Again, you conflate determinations of things that are relevant to the reliability of a poster (and one’s sex is critical in discussions, like pro-life, that is a trigger issue with women) with [fallacious Argumentum] ad Hominem. It is not. In fact, Jim H, Phineas, and you are the ones that make disparaging remarks of irrelevant and effectively unsupported aspects of your opposition. Those are Argumentum ad Hominem. The differentiation of what is actually fallacious Argumentum ad Hominem and what is not has been shown to you (see Robert Taylor). You have been —CHALLENGED— many times to refute what he postulates. To date, you have evaded this challenge. You’re a —FRAUD—, Dannius.. Yes. You are.
          A different “style” of communication? My “style” is that of presenting a series of deductions and providing reference and reasoning. Yours? Yours is just saying, “Nuh Uh! You’re being ridiculous”. That’s rather juvenile and really what trolls do. It is you that needs to stop being evasive. Then again, that “style” of argument is what social justice warriors are all about.
          *****
          —–It seems you did not directly answer my offer to close this out via gentleman’s agreement, so I’ll close it out on my end,—–
          Do you ever think that people can’t see that you’re a —LIAR—?
          I just —directly— answered that in detail. You can check the response (somehow, why do we all know that you’ll just pretend you don’t see it). You’re a habitual —LIAR— and a complete —FRAUD—, Dannius.
          *****
          —–…and you will likely follow up with typical ramblings about dishonesty and womanhood, flavored with some artificial logic.—–
          Your subterfuge is quite predictable by now.
          What you do is to repeat the same —LIES— with the hope that viewers get “confused” with who is lying and who is telling the truth. The problem with that is the clear difference between my content and yours. All you’re doing is being contrary. You claim I am using “artificial” logic, but make no connection between that opinion and any evidence of it. I see too that Errant_V2 has actually researched and found my first post to “Phineas”. As well, he sees what many see — that you were probably the now Missing-in-Action Phineas. You’re not just a —DISHONEST— individual, your one of —MOST— dishonest individuals I’ve seen Online.
          *****
          —–As I told Errant, I am not going to give any more traffic than I already have to this sexist site.—–
          Lol. If you are going to exit, you may as well do it with insults… right?
          As before, I —CHALLENGE— you to provide some foundation to your dubious notion that this site is “sexist”. In reality, modern feminists are some of the most “sexist” people around. The whole concept of “feminism” is about trying to gain more privilege while maintaining the privileges society already gives women. All this is done by hiding behind the disguise that one is a “victim”. As Errant_V2 has told you —- you are a —FRAUD—.
          *****
          —–As a psychology student, I have found our interaction to be very interesting – even enlightening – regarding communication styles, cognitive distortions, aggression/hostility, and discovering what type of people would be drawn to a sick site like ROK in the first place.—–
          It is unlikely you have a good grasp of psychology if you actually believe your attempt to use a passive aggressive insult.
          I’ve already gone over the “communication style” difference between you and me. It is wholly disingenuous to believe that your evasive approach is legitimate debate. Of course, you will excuse your actions by saying, “No one is debating”. However, considering the ON-TOPIC supposition (complete with references and transparent development) I have given, that would be a —LIE—.
          Cognitive Distortion? Seriously? You’re the one that flatly —REFUSES— to offer any detail as to why you make allegations like “that’s ridiculous”. You avoid any challenge to refute points made by your opposition, you have been caught —LYING—, you pretend that “Jim H” hiding his history is not crucial to his honesty (or lack of it) …. And… you accuse people who offer comprehensive background on their deductions, guilty of cognitive distortion? You’re —A PATHETIC TROLL—.
          You then go on to denigrate this site with false claims that it is “sick”. Your —DISHONESTY— and —HOSTILITY— is proof that you are one of those —SELF RIGHTEOUS— social justice warriors who believes that any method they choose, regardless of how underhanded or despicable is justified because they are fighting for “justice”. You are a complete —FRAUD—.
          *****
          —–Thank you for the opportunity to educate myself, it will improve my ability to understand and truly help future clients.—–
          You definitely need to get a real education. Apparently your soft degree studies have not taught you any critical thinking skills, nor has it imbued you with any humility for your lack of acumen. The problem with you social justice warriors is that you really believe the “I’m a special snowflake” hype. The moment you get your narrative questioned, it reveals to you the flaws in your foundation. You can’t accept realizing how what you believe in is actually a sham. So… you lash out at those who have actually educated you.
          Your gratitude is false and contemptuous. You really SHOULD be thanking those that destroyed your belief system. However, your immaturity just goes into “denial” over-drive.
          *****
          —–I will not be responding to your hostile and repetitive comments again. If you care to take up a civil debate, let me know. Otherwise, enjoy your weekend, and enjoy your last word. Farewell. 🙂—–
          None of my posts to you have been hostile. If they seem repetitive they are only so because they refute your repeated lies. Civil debate? You haven’t a clue of what a real “civilized” debate is all about. In fact you think that debates are an opportunity for propagandists like you to post up misinformation and defend that misinformation by whatever low-class and underhanded method you have at your disposal. As a “moderator” for Live Action News, you do that site an injustice. As a netizen, you set a very bad example.
          I see that Errant_V2 exposed your —DISHONESTY— once and for all by posting my first response to “Phineas” (who clearly was just your sock-puppet). You are a complete —FRAUD— and it is good that everyone has the chance to see just how despicable social justice warriors really are. It is sincerely hoped that someday you will forgo this immaturity and become a responsible adult.

        89. Great detective work, Errant. That troll Dannius is B-BBBusted. She is dishonest to the point that it is a psychological illness.
          Check out how Jim H rationalizes her, er his, cowardice:
          http://liveactionnews.org/pro-lifers-view-paid-family-leave/#comment-2722977924

          Check out Jim H here (where he can’t be protected by Dannius the trollius):
          http://christiannews.net/2015/05/11/evolution-supporters-oppose-bill-that-encourages-objective-review-of-scientific-theories/
          (Sort by Best, it is about 1 page down)

        90. You are actually crazy. Who the frack would ever write this much – your crazy essays are longer than most academic essays. Obviously there’s nothing I can say to stop this crazy, but seriously, dude, get some help.

        91. How is his argument dishonest exactly?
          Don’t answer that actually. I’m not going to read 6.10 parts of a repetitive, bizarre rant by a mentally ill basket case.

        92. You are mentally ill. You got defeated and now you resort to stalking. The “you’re response is too long” commentary is typical of those who know they have no counter argument. Get professional help. You’re low self-esteem is a symptom of deeper mental issues.

        93. Same straw man argument as usual. You’re pathetic (and probably a wannabe woman). It is curious how you equate “social justice warrior” to be automatically “woman”.

        94. You claim the responses “too long” and now feign that how Dannius’ argument being dishonest has not been explained. That in itself is dishonest. Read the response, moron. You are cognitively challenged. Get some psychiatric help.

        95. Aww…. you don’t have a response so you try to denigrate those who defeat trolls like yourself. Poor widdle troll. You’re quite the loser.

        96. You don’t have a legitimate response so you ridicule like the little child that you are James-Soul-Saver-Johnson. You’re quite the cunt.

        97. No, you just don’t have a legit response so you are deflecting. Why are such a butt-hurt troll?

        98. You’re the one with all the —emotional— responses, imbecile. Get some cognitive skills, simpleton.

        99. Nice try at parroting. You got exposed as a sock puppeteer, so, all you try to say that everyone else is too. Where’s “Soul Saver”, loser?

        100. However, you haven’t written a —legitimate— response. You trolls are so easy to expose. You’re such a moron.

        101. You love being beaten, don’t you. It makes you feel submissive.

        102. My original comment was on the length and bizarreness of your posts.
          Can you explain, in less than a paragraph please, how this is an illegitimate response to your long, crazy, weirdo rants?

        103. Wash, rinse, repeat.
          Do you actually mistake yourself for an intellectual because your posts are long and numbered?
          Nevermind content and meaning, it’s all about size and length.

        104. Response to what? SERIOUSLY. What am I responding to? You blarry weirdies finding me on different platforms and accusing me of abusing your poor feelings as some other weirdy called Soul Saver. I researched and found Soul Saver after your boring finger-pointing sessions.
          I didn’t actually find any evidence of that user abusing you, just some dumb back and forth name-calling or some such, so I don’t know why you have your little knickers in such a twist.
          So what would you like me to respond to, dearest little petal? All I can say, is that you are hilarious, and that all the conventional wisdom about MRAs and ROOSH followers being a bunch of light-avoiding, basement-dwelling newts MUST be true. Because you are obsessed with boring, verbose arguments with people who mildly disagree with you and care not one bit about the arguments you put forth.
          Yet, you must put hours into your crazy, long winded, dull responses.

        105. You don’t write the rules, troll. Generally, the length of a response is determined by what is required to refute the post it is responding to. You are just trying to move the goal posts around.

        106. That’s what you do. You can’t debate at a level higher than that of a child, troll. You can pretend you are an intellectual, but you fool nobody.

        107. No. Your taunting betrays your hurt “feelings”. The false bravado does too.

        108. You are responding to anything and everything in a vain attempt to harass those you cannot debate. You’re the one who hides and uses sock puppets to attack others.
          Now that your sock puppet, “Soul Saver” is banned here, you have to ply your trade of insults via JamesDeanJohnsonless.

        109. Hang on, you are changing the story. You told me I haven’t given you a legitimate response. Which is laughable, as my comment was in response to your weird little essays, and was pretty clear. Now, you’re telling me I am harrassing those I cannot debate. However, we’ve never debated, Geezus. I’ve only encountered you when you attacked me for being this magic Soul Saver dude. So, how about, you stop being such an aggressive, weird, crazy, abusive little baby, and we’ll call it quits.

        110. Sure!! Hahahaha. Bravado about what? You’ve not created one argument, given ANY discussion points, or engaged me on any level. How can I be hurt by you dropping the c-bomb and being a nasty little baby – most people have heard worse at some point. Now, this silly discussion is done. Until the next time you lunatics accuse some rando of being a sock puppet.

        111. You do realise that some of the qualities of good writing are brevity and succinctness… hahahha. I am not moving goal posts, I am suggesting you try to keep your audience’s attention and have some manners. Writing dull, repetitive, histrionic arguments which take an hour to read is the height of rudeness.

        112. Hang on, you are just taking things out of context like the typical Social Justice Warrior. You have not given any legitimate response on anything, INCLUDING that of what those “essays” speak to. That’s clear. Like I said, you’ve not even attempted to “debate” anything. I’m sure you are a master “debater”. Lol.
          You’ve been lurking around for ages, but now with Soul Saver unable to taunt here, you have to use your puppeteer account. So, how about, you stop being a sad, pathetic troll… oh wait, you can’t help it. You have severely low self-esteem. You won’t need to “call it quits” here. Eventually, you’ll be banned too.

        113. Yeah! Ahahahahahahah. You have all this smugness about how great you are, but when you encounter comprehensive arguments all you do is sit on the sidelines and take pot shots like the typical coward. You did that as “Soul Saver” and you are now doing it as JamesDeanJohnsonless. You probably do it as countless other sock puppets too. You are the typical -C-U-N-T- that thinks only you are intelligent and anyone that disagrees with you is to be attacked.
          Now, your pathetic attempt to bully is done… at least until your next set of childish posts…

        114. You do realize that the an important aspect of debating wannabe social justice warriors is to provide comprehensive cases so that they have little in the way of deflection (a standard practice that you trolls use). While it can often be at the sacrifice of “brevity” it hard removes the “goodness” of the endeavor.
          While prejudiced individuals like you may be PART of the targeted audience, that role is not your’s alone. You have every ability to deem the writing “dull” and “repetitive”, but that is merely a biased opinion that takes no account of the purpose and how effectively Dannius was made to look the fool (and a particularly dishonest one at that.)
          The “height of rudeness”? You’d know all about that as you attempt to be as rude as possible in your feeble attacks. No one is forcing you to read anything. Typically, children like you think people owe you an experience to your liking. Do you really not see how immature you act and self-important you feel you are?

        115. Too bad you have nothing even close to a good comeback yourself. It is clear you that behaves as a spoiled 8-year-old. Try to grow up, troll.

        116. I couldn’t agree more with the author! Our “degenerate society” gets more disgusting every day. Basically anything goes now but no matter what some people may think anyone who covers their body in tattoos and piercings is calling attention to themselves in a negative way. This kind of behavior suggests that the wearer has major issues, most likely from a broken family and very likely associated with drug abuse and low self esteem. I would never date or hire a girl with one of those ugly bull rings hanging from her nose. It basically says “I’m a loser”. I don’t believe people are really dumb enough to think the tattoos and piercings are attractive. It’s more like “I did it because I can and tough shit if you don’t like it” and not someone you want working for your company or dating your son or daughter.

      1. Phineas got a severe a55-whipping from you and they just can’t have that. It shows the kind of one-sided view that lib-tards promote though.
        It all makes sense that Phineas was actually a moderator in disguise.
        When he lost the argument, he had to stoop to the low class move of just deleting what he couldn’t argue against. C-O-W-A-R-D is right.

        1. Yep. It’s the standard routine:
          _1_ Attack any one that challenges you. (Jim H) When that fails…
          _2_ Use a sock-puppet to continue a more vicious attack (Lachlan Williams). When that fails…
          _3_ Use another sock puppet to try to win via intellect (Phinaes McClintock). When that fails…
          _4_ Post as the moderator (since that is who is doing the sock puppetry) and echo what the “intellectual” said. Oh, and ask people to not mention sock-puppetry or lying (as that is what what the “intellectual” sock-puppet is doing. When that fails…
          _5_ Start deleting posts your “intellectual” sock puppet cannot refute (or has lied to refute and basically thrown away its reputation).
          … THAT, my friends is what you witness here:
          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/liveactionnews/a_pro_lifer8217s_view_on_paid_family_leave/#comment-2694824842
          … THAT is DISHONESTY and COWARDICE in action.
          Lol. …and Millennial social justice warriors wonder why people are fed up with them.

        2. This thread is useful for so many things.
          Especially showing the cowardice of moderator’s boy trolls.
          Jim H has already be chased away from this thread?

        3. Jim H is far too much of a *coward* to come to this thread. She prefers the safety of threads where she can flag posts that hurt her feelings.
          Notice that Phineas McClintock has changed her user name from Fenton Snow to Phineas McClintock and turned her history to private. She was so savagely beaten by Geezus that she won’t dare challenge him here either. I challenged her multiple times, and each time she made some lame excuse.
          Chances are, Jimmy and Phinny are the same butt-hurt woman.

        4. Of course not! *Jim H* is trying to distance herself from *Phineas McClintock* to try and hide that sock-puppetry. She’s a habitual liar just like Geezus proved.

        5. Phineas McClintock has since had all of her posts on the LAN thread deleted, and her profile has disappeared from Disqus. That is a common fate of sock puppets that are created to debate what the troll sock puppeteer cannot (since they have usually chosen the Personal Attack path in attempts to disengage).
          Once these pseudo-intellectual sock puppets are refuted, they lose their credibility. With credibility in the trash, they can no longer pretend to be “intelligent” and therefore retain little impact. The only choice left is to fall on her sword.
          Another sock puppet joins the Dead Poser Society.

        6. Oh, OK. Stand in line with all of the rest of the women. Just remember I am a married man.
          But, with eyes like yours, who knows?

  7. I agree about the piercing thing.But I met normal girls with tattoos.But they have often discreet tattoos.
    The one with screaming tattoos or piercing often fit into your category

  8. So, you’ll admittidly f*** any chick that’s semi-warm, and a girl with a second earring is mentally ill? This website is a joke right?

    1. Whoever said anyone would fuck any chick that’s semi-warm? Get some fucking glasses bitch. The jokes on you huh?
      Now GTFO the door is that way ——————->
      GFY

  9. Okay, your a jackass, for one, this is sexist, and stupid, you are putting a stereotype on people, you may be have your own beliefs, but you don’t need to be spreading them around, in this situation you are the wrong one, so what if a woman is a slut, that is their business, not yours, your not the one she having sex with, you wish. Women with tattoos are not broken, it makes them feel themselves in their bodies. Okay, some women with tattoos have mental issues, but that is apparently the only kind you’ve ever encountered. So what. Its just their life, and their bodies, and their business, not yours, get over it, you came on your dumb little computer, and wrote this pointless article, its people like you that keep our society in terrible shape, and poverty. This probably won’t change your mind, but you can at least read this comment, if you aren’t such an asshole.

    1. Prussia the Awesome Item 1:

      Okay, your a jackass, for one, this is sexist, and stupid, you are putting a stereotype on people, you may be have your own beliefs, but you don’t need to be spreading them around,

      OK, Prussy, you are a fool.
      This article is not sexist. It may focus on what tattoos say about women, but it, in no way, is vilifying or debasing women for merely being, well, women. You seem to have trouble with anything that puts a subset (and a subset that, on the most part, one voluntarily joins) of women in a less than godly light.
      This article is not stupid in that it describes a set of behaviors which in turn manifest often in the form of tattoos. It does not stereotype tattooed women either. What it does do is to point towards certain personality traits that are pervasive amongst the younger generation of women in the First World who use their body to billboard their past “feelings”.
      While you clearly believe you have the right to offer “opinion” on the character of someone who writes an article, you hypocritically suggest that said author doesn’t need to publically state his opinion. What makes you so privileged over others?
      = = = = =
      Prussia the Awesome Item 2:

      in this situation you are the wrong one, so what if a woman is a slut, that is their business, not yours, your not the one she having sex with, you wish.

      No. In the CONTEXT of his article, the tattooed individuals are wholly in an intimate relationship with the author. If that woman is a slut, and she is a partner, it is completely the business of that partner. The personality traits beneath the multi-hued skin is also the business of anyone that is looking to be in a relationship with that person. Do you even have any reading comprehension or cognitive skills?
      = = = = =
      Prussia the Awesome Item 3:

      Women with tattoos are not broken, it makes them feel themselves in their bodies. Okay, some women with tattoos have mental issues, but that is apparently the only kind you’ve ever encountered.

      Really, if someone has to poke ink under their skin to form a reminder of past “feelings”, they are very much more “broken” than not. It’s like wearing a T-Shirt that says things like, “I’ve suffered!” The difference being that you can always take that T-shirt off (and covering up a tattoo is not really the same thing). Most of the tattoo advocates we encounter on the original 40K response thread exhibit signs of serious mental issues.
      = = = = =
      Prussia the Awesome Item 4:

      So what. Its just their life, and their bodies, and their business, not yours, get over it, you came on your dumb little computer, and wrote this pointless article,

      No. Little could be further from the truth.
      If someone is wearing their “feelings” on their arm, or leg, or back, etc… they are literally making their feelings known to others. Hence, they are deliberately making their business the business of anyone within viewing range. That is their intention. Get over it. You came to your keyboard is like made that idiotic comment.
      = = = = =
      Prussia the Awesome Item 5:

      its people like you that keep our society in terrible shape, and poverty. This probably won’t change your mind, but you can at least read this comment, if you aren’t such an asshole.

      No. It’s people like you that are degrading Western society. Your all-about-me attitude coupled with the typical feelings of entitlement that you can behave however you wish and everyone has to stand by and accept it is atrocious.
      That is what happens when Millennials are sheltered to the point that they think they are actually “special snowflakes” that the entire world must bow to (really, that is how you act). You probably won’t change your attitude, and instead demand that everyone accept your “right” to have your opinion while the author does not (according to you).
      Get lost, troll.

      1. Are you always this thorough? I’ll be surprised if she ever posts again.

    2. This is sexist…how?
      ************************
      Maybe you think truths are sexist when they hurt your feelings?

    3. No it won’t change my mind and yes I’m an asshole.
      Tattoos indicate slutty behavior
      Being tattooed is associated with greater numbers of lifetime sexual partners (Heywood 2012), earlier sexual initiation, higher frequency of sexual intercourse and increased preference for oral sex (Nowosielski 2012). In adolescents, tattoos also correlate with the likelihood of having unprotected sex (Yen, 2012), but not in adults (Nowosielski 2012).
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Nowosielski: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22616886
      Yen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726901
      Tattoos indicate lack of foresight
      Tattoos indicate impulsiveness (Kim, 1991). In students, tattooing is associated with risk-taking behaviors, including smoking and cannabis use (Heywood, 2012). Participants with tattoos or body piercings were more likely to have engaged in risk-taking behaviors and at greater degrees of involvement than those without either. These included gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity, and suicide.
      Gateway drug use was associated with younger age of both tattooing and body piercing. Hard drug use was associated with number of body piercings (Carroll 2002). In Croatian prisoners, tattoos correlated with lower IQs and those possessing them demonstrated significantly higher levels of impulsiveness than the non-tattooed group (Pozgain 2004). An overview of autopsy reports also revealed that persons with tattoos appear to die earlier than those without. A negative tattoo may suggest a predisposition to violent death, but is eclipsed by the presence of any tattoo (Carson 2014).
      Kim: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1781185
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Carroll: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12042538
      Pozgain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15119003
      Carson: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24926092
      Impulsiveness, increased risk taking behavior, increased change of death = Lack of foresight
      Body modifications = mental illness
      There are links between tattoos and psychiatric disorders such as depression (Heywood, 2012), eating disorders (Carroll, 2002), borderline personality disorder (Raspa, 1990), neuroticism (Pozgain, 2004) and increased risk of suicide (Carroll, 2002). Seven or more piercings, or intimate piercings, described higher risk behaviors and emotional distress (Owen 2013). In high school students, tattoos correlate with suicidal idealization, suicidal attempts, and depression (Yen 2012).
      Raspa: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2333825
      Owen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23938068

  10. As much of a liberal and feminist woman as am, I have to agree with this article. I was raised very conservative, so I guess this viewpoint is the last bastion of my conservative upbringing. I can’t help it. Whenever I see a woman tatted and pierced like crazy, I just automatically think she is slutty, trashy, and mean. And I’d say about 80% of the time I am completely correct. I even showed this article to my fiancé and he agreed. Most of his past exes have been tatted, pierced (and some very short haired) and had that “suicidegirl” look. Consequently, they gave him nothing but headaches and heartaches. Had no idea how to be nurturing to him or domestic. Self serving, worthless cunts. However, I have 0 tattoos, only have my ears pierced, and have very long hair. And he says that I am the most sane, sweet and loving woman he’s ever been with. He has said that I am “wife material” and proposed to me about 4 months ago. Something he never did to them, and with good reason. one of his exes even has a biracial child and she still drops the n-bomb in front of the child and whoever else. Moron.
    Fun fact: in addition to changing her short, ugly hair to a different dumb color (last time i saw her is was mold green) every week, she also has the word “cunt” emblazoned on her leg in big black tattooed letters. At least she comes with a warning label!

  11. This actually made me laugh but here is my opinion on this. I have piercings and tattoos. I have a boyfriend of seven months. I have never cheated and don’t plan to do so. I don’t start fights, in fact I defuse them. I am very caring to him and respect his space and social life. I am boring. This article seems extremely bias. The females that this man has dated are just the wrong females to be ‘wifey’ material for him. He seems to contradict himself when he states in his two points that tattooed women with holds sex and are whores. I myself am a masochist but I respect my partners. If my partner does not like the life style then I just don’t make them. I don’t whine and I sure as hell won’t try to start a fight to get it. I don’t like sharp object inserted into my vagina either. I give them an equal thought before I make a decision on my plans for a day. I plan months ahead. I work and I wear my piercing and tattoos. I just wanted to make a statement that not all females that are tattooed and/or with piercings are as disrespectful to their partners as this man has made them seem. I hate the N word too.

    1. Amber Xavior Casteel:

      This actually made me laugh but here is my opinion on this. I have piercings and tattoos. I have a boyfriend of seven months. I have never cheated and don’t plan to do so.

      Lol. Another day, another “first couple of posts here” pseudo-accounts from the resident “Savior/Xavier” SJW. Your argument is basically, “I’m an exception, so because of that, the writer’s ideas are wrong”. Bullshit. That’s nothing more than the usual NAWALT. Even if what you say about “yourself” is true …… and that is dubious ….. it doesn’t speak to how Tat’s tell a tale about those who just have to wear them. You know… just like how just having to create sock puppet account after sock puppet account to post the same fallacy-founded argument like you just did says a lot about you.
      X X X X X X X

      I don’t start fights, in fact I defuse them. I am very caring to him and respect his space and social life. I am boring. This article seems extremely bias.

      Based on how you are coming here with the typical illogical rant tells that you are slave to your “feelings” rather than relying on the far more sensible approach of logical deduction. You’re definitely very biased towards thinking that inking up your feelings on your arms is somehow not “all about you”.
      X X X X X X X

      The females that this man has dated are just the wrong females to be ‘wifey’ material for him. He seems to contradict himself when he states in his two points that tattooed women with holds sex and are whores.

      That they are not “wifey” material to the writer, or to any other man looking for someone a little less self-absorbed, is obvious. He “seems” to contradict himself there? Well, it’s that kind of poor grasp on logic that shows why you are from adequate to be arguing this. Someone can be a complete whore, yet withhold sex from specific individuals. That’s just coercion …… another one of those bad traits.
      X X X X X X X

      I myself am a masochist but I respect my partners. If my partner does not like the life style then I just don’t make them.

      Your actions do you support your claims. You don’t even respect other people’s concepts when they don’t align with yours in something that shouldn’t involve “emotions”. It is doubtful that you are so accommodating to a partner.
      X X X X X X X

      I don’t whine and I sure as hell won’t try to start a fight to get it. I don’t like sharp object inserted into my vagina either. I give them an equal thought before I make a decision on my plans for a day. I plan months ahead. I work and I wear my piercing and tattoos.

      You are whining when you post this same-old bullshit NAWALT. From the half-baked argument you are posting here, it is unlikely you give a lot of thought to a lot of things. Apparently you just can’t seem to grasp the concept that being so focused on past emotions …. To the point that you have to write them on your skin in permanent ink …. Is hardly a great characteristic.
      X X X X X X X

      I just wanted to make a statement that not all females that are tattooed and/or with piercings are as disrespectful to their partners as this man has made them seem. I hate the N word too.

      Naaaa…. You “just” wanted to post the same bullshit exception-to-the-rule excuse to make it seem like what the article says is not general true. You’re very likely the same troll that creates sock puppets like you bought a pallet-o-socks at Walmart. Just the very idea that being in everyone’s face about your emotional past says you are unlikely to be anywhere near as considerate of others as those who do not.

    2. AWALT.
      Tattoos indicate slutty behavior
      Being tattooed is associated with greater numbers of lifetime sexual partners (Heywood 2012), earlier sexual initiation, higher frequency of sexual intercourse and increased preference for oral sex (Nowosielski 2012). In adolescents, tattoos also correlate with the likelihood of having unprotected sex (Yen, 2012), but not in adults (Nowosielski 2012).
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Nowosielski: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22616886
      Yen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726901
      Tattoos indicate lack of foresight
      Tattoos indicate impulsiveness (Kim, 1991). In students, tattooing is associated with risk-taking behaviors, including smoking and cannabis use (Heywood, 2012). Participants with tattoos or body piercings were more likely to have engaged in risk-taking behaviors and at greater degrees of involvement than those without either. These included gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity, and suicide.
      Gateway drug use was associated with younger age of both tattooing and body piercing. Hard drug use was associated with number of body piercings (Carroll 2002). In Croatian prisoners, tattoos correlated with lower IQs and those possessing them demonstrated significantly higher levels of impulsiveness than the non-tattooed group (Pozgain 2004). An overview of autopsy reports also revealed that persons with tattoos appear to die earlier than those without. A negative tattoo may suggest a predisposition to violent death, but is eclipsed by the presence of any tattoo (Carson 2014).
      Kim: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1781185
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Carroll: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12042538
      Pozgain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15119003
      Carson: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24926092
      Impulsiveness, increased risk taking behavior, increased change of death = Lack of foresight
      Body modifications = mental illness
      There are links between tattoos and psychiatric disorders such as depression (Heywood, 2012), eating disorders (Carroll, 2002), borderline personality disorder (Raspa, 1990), neuroticism (Pozgain, 2004) and increased risk of suicide (Carroll, 2002). Seven or more piercings, or intimate piercings, described higher risk behaviors and emotional distress (Owen 2013). In high school students, tattoos correlate with suicidal idealization, suicidal attempts, and depression (Yen 2012).
      Raspa: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2333825
      Owen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23938068

  12. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read this post. You are sick. You’re a horrible person who hates women. You said it yourself. You think women are dull, beneath you and sluts. Well I have a message for you: You are a thousand times worse than any slur you could possibly come up with. Women should be respected. Not treated like fuck toys that you can silence by shoving your HIV ridden dick into their mouths. How dare you? I can uderstand you don’t like tattoos and piercings: that’s your opinion, right of speech etc; but don’t EVER…EVER call us slags, cheaters, whores or mentally ill tattoo/piercing OR NOT. I hope you rot in hell or become someone’s bitch in prison.

    1. Anna Weikel:

      I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read this post. You are sick. You’re a horrible person who hates women.

      Lol. Yet another “first post here” sock puppet from the resident troll. You’re the sick one because you’ve been logically refuted every time you posted your same old junk arguments. You’re a horrible person that can’t accept that women are not automatically “special” for just being women. When they do things like stamp their emotions all over their body, they are proving by, their actions, that they are exactly as Matt says here. You “hate” anyone that sees that.
      x x x x x x x x x x
      Anna Weikel:

      You said it yourself. You think women are dull, beneath you and sluts.

      Nope. Matt didn’t say that. In fact, you are doing the same thing all you and your sock puppet trolls do — namely, using a straw man argument.
      Matt effectively said those things about tattooed women and basically about women who choose to behave a certain way. That includes hysterically trolling a site when they have been refuted every time they try.
      x x x x x x x x x x
      Anna Weikel:

      Well I have a message for you: You are a thousand times worse than any slur you could possibly come up with.

      Well… the message for you is that you are one of the worst people around. You can’t accept that when people have to put their past emotional state on permanent display others see that as a big red flag. All you do is attack people for understanding that.
      x x x x x x x x x x
      Anna Weikel:

      Women should be respected.

      Talk about “entitlement”. No one, no woman for that matter, “should” be respected unless they EARN that respect. Acting like everyone owes you special attention certainly doesn’t EARN you respect. That is what having tattoos is all about. It’s trying to draw attention to “feelings”. You don’t get respect for being so self-centered.
      x x x x x x x x x x
      Anna Weikel:

      Not treated like fuck toys that you can silence by shoving your HIV ridden dick into their mouths.

      Do you have some proof that Matt’s “dick” is HIV [riddled]? No? I didn’t think so. You’re just a hostile little idiot. The proof of that is in your illogical rant.
      x x x x x x x x x x
      Anna Weikel:

      How dare you? I can uderstand you don’t like tattoos and piercings: that’s your opinion, right of speech etc;

      How dare people tell the truth? Angry immature individuals like you think that any truth that bothers you is to be silenced by bullying. Well… how is that working for you, troll?
      The author didn’t say he didn’t like tattoos. Your reading comprehension is sadly lacking there. He basically made the connection between women getting tattoos and the problems in personality that it reveals. You think no one is allowed to say that without you attacking them.
      x x x x x x x x x x
      Anna Weikel:

      but don’t EVER…EVER call us slags, cheaters, whores or mentally ill tattoo/piercing OR NOT. I hope you rot in hell or become someone’s bitch in prison.

      Speaking of “rights”… you have neither the right nor the ability to tell anyone to not speak the truth about slags, cheaters, whores and mental illness. That you come here to attack the writer while offering no real argument against what he says, means you are a self-righteous anarchist.
      Chances are you are the one that will end up in prison as some dyke’s bitch. Get lost, you mentally ill slag.

    2. Okay thanks.
      Tattoos indicate slutty behavior
      Being tattooed is associated with greater numbers of lifetime sexual partners (Heywood 2012), earlier sexual initiation, higher frequency of sexual intercourse and increased preference for oral sex (Nowosielski 2012). In adolescents, tattoos also correlate with the likelihood of having unprotected sex (Yen, 2012), but not in adults (Nowosielski 2012).
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Nowosielski: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22616886
      Yen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726901
      Tattoos indicate lack of foresight
      Tattoos indicate impulsiveness (Kim, 1991). In students, tattooing is associated with risk-taking behaviors, including smoking and cannabis use (Heywood, 2012). Participants with tattoos or body piercings were more likely to have engaged in risk-taking behaviors and at greater degrees of involvement than those without either. These included gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity, and suicide.
      Gateway drug use was associated with younger age of both tattooing and body piercing. Hard drug use was associated with number of body piercings (Carroll 2002). In Croatian prisoners, tattoos correlated with lower IQs and those possessing them demonstrated significantly higher levels of impulsiveness than the non-tattooed group (Pozgain 2004). An overview of autopsy reports also revealed that persons with tattoos appear to die earlier than those without. A negative tattoo may suggest a predisposition to violent death, but is eclipsed by the presence of any tattoo (Carson 2014).
      Kim: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1781185
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Carroll: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12042538
      Pozgain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15119003
      Carson: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24926092
      Impulsiveness, increased risk taking behavior, increased change of death = Lack of foresight
      Body modifications = mental illness
      There are links between tattoos and psychiatric disorders such as depression (Heywood, 2012), eating disorders (Carroll, 2002), borderline personality disorder (Raspa, 1990), neuroticism (Pozgain, 2004) and increased risk of suicide (Carroll, 2002). Seven or more piercings, or intimate piercings, described higher risk behaviors and emotional distress (Owen 2013). In high school students, tattoos correlate with suicidal idealization, suicidal attempts, and depression (Yen 2012).
      Raspa: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2333825
      Owen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23938068

  13. What happened here? This article used to have 40,000 (or more) posts on it.

  14. I guess it really doesn’t take that much dignity or talent to become a professional author and journalist these days. If you’re looking for people to take you for a serious and intelligent individual, Matt, I highly recommend refraining from putting people in such a definitive box. Just because somebody is idiotic or insane, and happens to have also gotten themselves some tattoo or piercing, doesn’t mean that tattoo/piercing=”mentally ill boring left-wing broads.” I guess a very conservative christian girl wouldn’t be as likely to adorn such modifications. However, this doesn’t mean that you won’t find some piercing-less girl who also happens to be bloody insane. Tattoos and piercings can reflect somebody’s mindset or attitude, however, analyzing somebody’s personality takes a bit more thinking beyond “This girl’s septum piercing and arm tattoo indicate that she is not a very good person but I could easily fuck her.” We only wish it was so easy. And, I’d assume that none of your article’s negativity applies to male owners of body modifications. After all, your article is clearly directed towards females. It’s not as if you’re biased due to the fact that your past sexual partners with body mods also happened to be loons. No, this is just what girls with tattoos are like! Christ, man, if you want to write a circle-jerk article about how much you hate your exes, knock yourself out, but don’t drag millions of other girls into your personal fuckfest. Also: “I derived incredible pleasure from shoving my cock in her mouth to shut her up.” What are you, a highschooler? Grow up.

    1. Alex:

      I guess it really doesn’t take that much dignity or talent to become a professional author and journalist these days.

      Regardless of how much dignity or talent it takes to be paid for writing, it is certainly far more than what it takes to be a troll like you. Your “first post here” is likely just another of the usual sock puppets of the same old troll. The lack of logic and the re-cycling of the same debunked arguments are strong clues to that.
      X X X X X X X X

      If you’re looking for people to take you for a serious and intelligent individual, Matt, I highly recommend refraining from putting people in such a definitive box.

      It should be obvious to everyone other than small children and the cognitively challenged that the writer uses creative license to illustrate his points. The correlation between the number and how overtly tattoos are worn, and, the personality problems that Matt talks is accurate. Is as much a “definite box” as correlating a penchant for self-righteousness and immaturity is. What the writer says is “unpleasant” but true. Your “emotional” argument makes it difficult to take you seriously as anything more than someone who just can’t stand the truth.
      X X X X X X X X

      Just because somebody is idiotic or insane, and happens to have also gotten themselves some tattoo or piercing, doesn’t mean that tattoo/piercing=”mentally ill boring left-wing broads.”

      That’s just another of the usual straw man arguments that trolls use. The presence of tattoos is strongly tied to how solipsistic and self-important the wearer is. “Hey everybody, you get to see MY past emotional path because it is just that special!!!” Left-wing nuts are very much “all about me”, and generally lack the humility to admit that their narrative is wrong when confronted with the truth. In fact most just get hostile when they are challenged.
      X X X X X X X X

      I guess a very conservative christian girl wouldn’t be as likely to adorn such modifications. However, this doesn’t mean that you won’t find some piercing-less girl who also happens to be bloody insane.

      So? You self-righteous justice warriors always try this deflection don’t you? That’s like saying there are criminally minded people that haven’t served time for a felony, so there’s no point in taking a prison record into consideration ….. oh, wait, employers usually do. Go figure.
      Whether or not there are some un-marked-up women who are batshit crazy doesn’t mean squat. It is the relative rate at which tattooed vs. not-tattooed that have personality problems that matters. What the author says is supported by science. More tattoos means a much higher chance of self-absorbed attitude.
      X X X X X X X X

      Tattoos and piercings can reflect somebody’s mindset or attitude, however, analyzing somebody’s personality takes a bit more thinking beyond “This girl’s septum piercing and arm tattoo indicate that she is not a very good person but I could easily fuck her.” We only wish it was so easy.

      That’s yet another deflection. Who cares about psychoanalysing each individual to that degree? If the packaging tells you there are potential problems, then that’s good enough. Sure, “every” one is a diamond in the rough…… not! That’s the usual rationalization of trolls. They think that everyone is owed some sort of United Nations approved investigation. The truth is that profiling is what people do. The scientific studies show that tatted up women very likely to have personality issues…. So does common sense.
      Besides….. what? Like women don’t “profile”? Yeah. Sure.
      X X X X X X X X

      And, I’d assume that none of your article’s negativity applies to male owners of body modifications. After all, your article is clearly directed towards females.

      And… here you go with yet another junk troll argument. This article, this site…. It is targeted for hetero men. They aren’t interested in dating other men. Also, please tell us how men and women do not fundamentally differ in physical appearance. If you can show that, then you may have a point about how tats are seen differently on men then on women. Until then…. Bullshit.
      X X X X X X X X

      It’s not as if you’re biased due to the fact that your past sexual partners with body mods also happened to be loons. No, this is just what girls with tattoos are like!

      The writer re-states what science has said about women that go and tat-up their bodies. The only loon here is the loon that keeps making sock puppets to give the false impression that lots of people disagree with science and the writer. Yes. You are that obvious.
      X X X X X X X X

      Christ, man, if you want to write a circle-jerk article about how much you hate your exes, knock yourself out, but don’t drag millions of other girls into your personal fuckfest.

      Most of those “millions of girls” have the problems noted here. Please provide some peer-reviewed study that shows otherwise…. Or you are just repeating circle-jill bullshit.
      X X X X X X X X

      Also: “I derived incredible pleasure from shoving my cock in her mouth to shut her up.” What are you, a highschooler? Grow up.

      Everyone derives great pleasure in watching you make a fool out of yourself with these recycled crap arguments and insults. What are you? Mentally ill? Go get some psychiatric help….. you troll.

  15. This is extremely inaccurate and assumptious of the journalist and I’m really disgusted! It is up to everyone how they wish to express themselves, and to say that a woman is a slut and selfish and all the other ignorant things that were mentioned in this article is horrible. Tattoo artists usually have the same level of professionalism as doctors do when someone reveals themselves to them. I hope no one takes this article seriously as it is seriously inaccurate, offensive, repressive and countless of other negative things.

    1. Anon:

      This is extremely inaccurate and assumptious of the journalist

      Well, if it is not the usual sock-puppet using troll again back with her scheduled junk arguments… LOL. Get lost you idiot. The article is accurate enough since scientific studies show that the amount of tattoos and personality faults like solipsism are correlated. Don’t be trying to say that artistic license is the same as making assumptions because it isn’t.
      X X X X X X X

      …and I’m really disgusted!

      So what if you are “disgusted”? Your emotional reaction is not a reason for a truth to be withheld. You’re childish and self-important.
      X X X X X X X

      It is up to everyone how they wish to express themselves,

      So exactly where is the writer saying a person does not have the right to express themselves any way they wish? If anything it is you that is trying to limit the right of the writer to express himself by trying to punish him with insults for saying something that you find disturbing.
      X X X X X X X

      …and to say that a woman is a slut and selfish and all the other ignorant things that were mentioned in this article is horrible.

      You are the one that is being ignorant, kid. Science supports what this article says. You can “feel” it is horrible, but that doesn’t make it untrue or inaccurate.
      X X X X X X X

      Tattoo artists usually have the same level of professionalism as doctors do when someone reveals themselves to them.

      That tattoo artists are not held to anywhere near the standards a practicing physician is should be the first clue that your claim is spurious. Show us where tattoo artists have an accreditation process as rigorous and as difficult to achieve as that of a doctor of medicine. Really. You trolls are so pathetically idiotic.
      X X X X X X X

      I hope no one takes this article seriously as it is seriously inaccurate, offensive, repressive and countless of other negative things.

      The only “negative” thing here is you. The article is accurate since it is backed up by real scientific study. It may be “offensive” to you, but that does not make it incorrect. You really need to realize that your “feelings” don’t make a real argument.
      Get lost, troll.

    2. GFY
      Tattoos indicate slutty behavior
      Being tattooed is associated with greater numbers of lifetime sexual partners (Heywood 2012), earlier sexual initiation, higher frequency of sexual intercourse and increased preference for oral sex (Nowosielski 2012). In adolescents, tattoos also correlate with the likelihood of having unprotected sex (Yen, 2012), but not in adults (Nowosielski 2012).
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Nowosielski: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22616886
      Yen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726901
      Tattoos indicate lack of foresight
      Tattoos indicate impulsiveness (Kim, 1991). In students, tattooing is associated with risk-taking behaviors, including smoking and cannabis use (Heywood, 2012). Participants with tattoos or body piercings were more likely to have engaged in risk-taking behaviors and at greater degrees of involvement than those without either. These included gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity, and suicide.
      Gateway drug use was associated with younger age of both tattooing and body piercing. Hard drug use was associated with number of body piercings (Carroll 2002). In Croatian prisoners, tattoos correlated with lower IQs and those possessing them demonstrated significantly higher levels of impulsiveness than the non-tattooed group (Pozgain 2004). An overview of autopsy reports also revealed that persons with tattoos appear to die earlier than those without. A negative tattoo may suggest a predisposition to violent death, but is eclipsed by the presence of any tattoo (Carson 2014).
      Kim: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1781185
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Carroll: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12042538
      Pozgain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15119003
      Carson: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24926092
      Impulsiveness, increased risk taking behavior, increased change of death = Lack of foresight
      Body modifications = mental illness
      There are links between tattoos and psychiatric disorders such as depression (Heywood, 2012), eating disorders (Carroll, 2002), borderline personality disorder (Raspa, 1990), neuroticism (Pozgain, 2004) and increased risk of suicide (Carroll, 2002). Seven or more piercings, or intimate piercings, described higher risk behaviors and emotional distress (Owen 2013). In high school students, tattoos correlate with suicidal idealization, suicidal attempts, and depression (Yen 2012).
      Raspa: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2333825
      Owen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23938068

  16. Nothing says “20% off” like a tattoo. It helps us guys to easily see who is the trash that needs to be treated as such. If you are a trashy girl, keep it up, it simplifies the weeding process.

  17. All I can say is that as a heterosexual male, I agree with this entire article. A tattoo DETRACTS from you, I would never get involved with any woman who would deliberately ink or pierce her body up, aside from ear lobe- 1 hole per lobe

    1. Only as a more fun substitute for tissue paper.
      Still, I would kick her out at midnight with out cab fare. I want her to be pissed and not to get any ideas about coming back around.
      Who uses the same tissue paper twice anyway?

  18. UPDATE August 1, 2016: Current name of DGCJ is “No2Guns”
    In regards to this thread:
    http://mattforney.com/fat-girls-dont-deserve-loved/
    Some trolls never learn. DGCJ is a habitual liar and about as DISHONEST a person as it comes. He claims to have won arguments, but in reality is nothing but a hostile individual bent on promoting falsehoods and making false claims of scientific support. His usual lies revolve around the Carole Jenny study from 1994 and the W. L. Marshall study from 1988. Basically, he is lying. His agenda is to misinform people in his campaign to vilify those that see the self-serving immorality of his extremely perverted views.
    Here’s why his usual arrogant attitude is nothing but a sham:
    The Carole Jenny 98% are “Heterosexual” Misinformation
    Pediatrics
    July 1994, VOLUME 94 / ISSUE 1
    Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?
    Carole Jenny, Thomas A. Roesler, Kimberly L. Poyer
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/94/1/41?sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token
    The subterfuge here is that Jenny et al actually determined that in a community setting (about 269 cases were considered for this statistic) perpetrators would “identify” as heterosexual. This in no way means that the perpetrators are actually heterosexual. In fact, it means that, in order to get into situations where they could perpetrate the acts, they had to appear as heterosexual. This makes sense since people would be wary of those who are recognizably homosexual.
    It would be like try to use the statistic that practically all thieves are not about to identify themselves as a thief when they are casing a target. What Jenny’s findings mean is that homosexuals who target young boys, will disguise themselves — much like how DGCJ will disguise himself as a righteous and honest person (the difference being that his disguise is transparent and in vain.)
    The very fact that a man specifically chooses to molest young males, is by definition, a desire to engage in homosexual activities.
    = = = = = = = = = =
    The William C. Holmes Misinformation
    Review
    Sexual Abuse of Boys
    Definition, Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae, and Management
    William C. Holmes, MD, MSCE; Gail B. Slap, MD, MS
    http://www.jimhopper.com/pdfs/holmes_&_slap_1998.pdf
    This bit of subterfuge is particularly heinous in that what the DGCJ (or any other propagandist for matter) is doing is vicariously referencing the very same study by Carole Jenny et al. from 1994. Yes! Really. That is how flagrantly DISHONEST DGCJ is. He makes TWO references to the same study to make it appear like there are independent schools arriving at a similar conclusion. Check out the link, Holmes references Jenny as citation 82 in his paper. The lesson here is that those who choose to misrepresent the facts and promote their myth-based narrative are often flagrantly DISHONEST individuals. DGCJ is an example of that deceitful character.
    = = = = = = = =
    The Marshall Misrepresentation
    Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preferences. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.
    Marshall, W.L., Barbaree, H.E., & Butt, J. (1988).
    http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/marshall.html
    The facts that DGCJ is conveniently not relating are several, and really do not support what he tries to portray (that 98% of men who molest boys are heterosexual).
    Firstly, the study, of known molesters found that two-thirds of the group was more attracted to adult women, but one-third was more attracted to adult men. Even if we only considered the latter third, homosexuals compromise 3% of the population. Their representation of child molesters is inflated by 11 fold!
    .
    It doesn’t stop there either. The test showed that attraction to adult males and females, but that doesn’t mean the molesters were not purposely choosing boys. What it points towards is that two-thirds of men who molest boys are seeking more feminine traits in their targets, but still preferred the targets to be boys.
    Next, the study showed that those who preferred adult males molested pubescent boys, but those who preferred adult females targeted pre-pubescent boys. Again, remember, that they are still consciously choosing boys over girls (and that even in pre-pubescence, the difference is palpable.)
    Marshall himself makes no conclusion that men who choose to molest pre-pubescent boys are not homosexual. All he discovered was that, they were attracted to adult females too. If anything, it shows that these men are likely bi-sexual, and still prefer homosexual encounters with young boys. This in no way supports DGCJ’s myth that 98% of men who molest boys are heterosexual. Still, 100% of men who molest boys are consciously choosing a homosexual encounter.
    = = = = = = = =
    The research is clearly misrepresented to create a false sense of justification for DGCJ’s hostility towards the informed public. In reality, findings show time and time again that men who consciously choose to molest young boys are definitely homosexual in desire and action. Most will act as heterosexuals to gain better access to their prey.
    Trolls like DGCJ are anti-social individuals who believe their campaign of misinformation can offer confusion to the uninitiated and affirmation to the fellow predator. His actions are corrupt and essentially there to create a false sense of validity towards what is both immoral and criminal in nature. There should be no leniency shown to this incredibly hateful, mentally disturbed and malicious person.
    http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/4a0f845d5c6aa35f372f21da60aed87b39909058db7c525736b029f0/original.jpg

      1. I’m flattered!
        Sometimes I wonder if these regular trolls are really that much in denial. It is possible, but you’d think that the cognitive dissonance would eventually be too distracting and then they would be enlightened. That dissonance is exhibited by behaviors like personal attacks or ignoring via “blocking” DISQUS message notifications (although it is likely Deej just says he’s blocked as a way to rationalize not answering).
        Small children, seniors with dementia, and those actually mentally ill will all rationalize. The first two groups lack the consistency and regularity of trolls like Deej. I’m going with “Mentally Ill”. =^))

        1. I’m saving that myself, just masterfully researched and presented!! Outstanding post!

        1. Perversion. You could never be sick enough for that boy felching faggot.

  19. I don’t fully understand the logic behind all of this, just because a girl wants to share their right to freedom of expression people degrade their status in society and then them into monsters for being themselves. So what if they have a piece of metal in them or ink under their skin, not everyone is like that. And the logic behind saying that they’re boring is ridiculous considering you are accusing them of being on more sausage than ketchup. So ya. Please don’t assume that just because you had a girl suck you off that you know every girl in the gene pool. I only assume you know maybe a few sisters and a cousin because you have a back woods process of thought.

  20. I don’t fully understand the logic behind all of this, just because a girl wants to share their right to freedom of expression people degrade their status in society and then them into monsters for being themselves. So what if they have a piece of metal in them or ink under their skin, not everyone is like that. And the logic behind saying that they’re boring is ridiculous considering you are accusing them of being on more sausage than ketchup. So ya. Please don’t assume that just because you had a girl suck you off that you know every girl in the gene pool. I only assume you know maybe a few sisters and a cousin because you have a back woods process of thought.

  21. I don’t fully understand the logic behind all of this, just because a girl wants to share their right to freedom of expression people degrade their status in society and then them into monsters for being themselves. So what if they have a piece of metal in them or ink under their skin, not everyone is like that. And the logic behind saying that they’re boring is ridiculous considering you are accusing them of being on more sausage than ketchup. So ya. Please don’t assume that just because you had a girl suck you off that you know every girl in the gene pool. I only assume you know maybe a few sisters and a cousin because you have a back woods process of thought.

  22. I don’t fully understand the logic behind all of this, just because a girl wants to share their right to freedom of expression people degrade their status in society and then them into monsters for being themselves. So what if they have a piece of metal in them or ink under their skin, not everyone is like that. And the logic behind saying that they’re boring is ridiculous considering you are accusing them of being on more sausage than ketchup. So ya. Please don’t assume that just because you had a girl suck you off that you know every girl in the gene pool. I only assume you know maybe a few sisters and a cousin because you have a back woods process of thought.

    1. Donald Drumpf:

      I don’t fully understand the logic behind all of this, just because a girl wants to share their right to freedom of expression people degrade their status in society and then them into monsters for being themselves.

      You’re just acting stupid. There have been scientific studies that show how girls who tat themselves up are more likely to have personality issues. No one is trying to remove their “right” to freedom of expression, but you sure do seem to be trying to shame the writer for exercising his.
      Getting tats is voluntary degradation. Don’t be trying blame others for someone’s own doing.
      Turn them into monsters? That is hyperbolic. You sound a lot like the usual troll that comes here. Seeing that this is yet another “first post here”, you probably are.
      X X X X X X X X

      So what if they have a piece of metal in them or ink under their skin, not everyone is like that.

      Nope. In the case of poking holes in yourself and needling ink under your skin, girls who do that are usual full of personality problems. Some of them even lurk around discussion forums and create sock puppets to make it seem like there are many people who disagree with common sense things like this thread.
      X X X X X X X X

      And the logic behind saying that they’re boring is ridiculous considering you are accusing them of being on more sausage than ketchup.

      If someone has to stamp their “feelings” all over themselves, it is definitely a way of looking for attention. Needing that kind of “boost” usually means you’re not all that interesting. It makes lots of sense. Interesting people don’t need to “advertise”.
      X X X X X X X X

      So ya. Please don’t assume that just because you had a girl suck you off that you know every girl in the gene pool.

      So…… Nope! Don’t put words in the writer’s mouth. He didn’t say he knew every girl in the gene pool. Of course, he did say that lots-o-tats means high odds of big-time personality problems. You know, problems like just not being able to accept obvious truths and instead trolling articles…
      X X X X X X X X

      I only assume you know maybe a few sisters and a cousin because you have a back woods process of thought.

      It stands to reason that your need to use lame personal insults like this that you are really just immature and self-righteous. Maybe you should get a tattoo that says, “feelings are special”.
      Get a life you skank troll.

    2. Get lost you loser. You come here with the same bullcrap on a regular basis. New Sock puppet, but same old stupidity.

  23. I don’t fully understand the logic behind all of this, just because a girl wants to share their right to freedom of expression people degrade their status in society and then them into monsters for being themselves. So what if they have a piece of metal in them or ink under their skin, not everyone is like that. And the logic behind saying that they’re boring is ridiculous considering you are accusing them of being on more sausage than ketchup. So ya. Please don’t assume that just because you had a girl suck you off that you know every girl in the gene pool. I only assume you know maybe a few sisters and a cousin because you have a back woods process of thought.

    1. AWALT
      Tattoos indicate slutty behavior
      Being tattooed is associated with greater numbers of lifetime sexual partners (Heywood 2012), earlier sexual initiation, higher frequency of sexual intercourse and increased preference for oral sex (Nowosielski 2012). In adolescents, tattoos also correlate with the likelihood of having unprotected sex (Yen, 2012), but not in adults (Nowosielski 2012).
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Nowosielski: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22616886
      Yen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726901
      Tattoos indicate lack of foresight
      Tattoos indicate impulsiveness (Kim, 1991). In students, tattooing is associated with risk-taking behaviors, including smoking and cannabis use (Heywood, 2012). Participants with tattoos or body piercings were more likely to have engaged in risk-taking behaviors and at greater degrees of involvement than those without either. These included gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity, and suicide.
      Gateway drug use was associated with younger age of both tattooing and body piercing. Hard drug use was associated with number of body piercings (Carroll 2002). In Croatian prisoners, tattoos correlated with lower IQs and those possessing them demonstrated significantly higher levels of impulsiveness than the non-tattooed group (Pozgain 2004). An overview of autopsy reports also revealed that persons with tattoos appear to die earlier than those without. A negative tattoo may suggest a predisposition to violent death, but is eclipsed by the presence of any tattoo (Carson 2014).
      Kim: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1781185
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Carroll: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12042538
      Pozgain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15119003
      Carson: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24926092
      Impulsiveness, increased risk taking behavior, increased change of death = Lack of foresight
      Body modifications = mental illness
      There are links between tattoos and psychiatric disorders such as depression (Heywood, 2012), eating disorders (Carroll, 2002), borderline personality disorder (Raspa, 1990), neuroticism (Pozgain, 2004) and increased risk of suicide (Carroll, 2002). Seven or more piercings, or intimate piercings, described higher risk behaviors and emotional distress (Owen 2013). In high school students, tattoos correlate with suicidal idealization, suicidal attempts, and depression (Yen 2012).
      Raspa: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2333825
      Owen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23938068

  24. I’m laughing pretty hard because whoever made this list literally needs to get there priorities straight. I know plenty of girls that have tattoos to have jobs, be nice, be good wives, and just in general be a great person.

    1. Hey:

      I’m laughing pretty hard because whoever made this list literally needs to get there priorities straight. I know plenty of girls that have tattoos to have jobs, be nice, be good wives, and just in general be a great person.

      Bullshit. You’re not laughing at all, especially if you have to make a new Disqus membership just to say “you are laughing”. Most likely, you are the same troll that invented the sock puppet “Donald Drumpf” and every other one with the same repeated dumb arguments.
      This time around you are using the “Well, I know all these great tattooed women…” to ignore that the point is that it’s all relative. Chances of a tatted up woman having a less self-centered attitude is a lot higher than one that isn’t tatted up. It makes sense since advertising your “feelings” that way is being self-absorbed.
      In general a great person? Bullshit. You’re regular create-a-puppet trolling in defense of tatting-up is more proof that tattoo defenders are self righteous and full of it.
      Get lost, troll.

    2. Hay is for horses.
      Tattoos indicate slutty behavior
      Being tattooed is associated with greater numbers of lifetime sexual partners (Heywood 2012), earlier sexual initiation, higher frequency of sexual intercourse and increased preference for oral sex (Nowosielski 2012). In adolescents, tattoos also correlate with the likelihood of having unprotected sex (Yen, 2012), but not in adults (Nowosielski 2012).
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Nowosielski: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22616886
      Yen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726901
      Tattoos indicate lack of foresight
      Tattoos indicate impulsiveness (Kim, 1991). In students, tattooing is associated with risk-taking behaviors, including smoking and cannabis use (Heywood, 2012). Participants with tattoos or body piercings were more likely to have engaged in risk-taking behaviors and at greater degrees of involvement than those without either. These included gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity, and suicide.
      Gateway drug use was associated with younger age of both tattooing and body piercing. Hard drug use was associated with number of body piercings (Carroll 2002). In Croatian prisoners, tattoos correlated with lower IQs and those possessing them demonstrated significantly higher levels of impulsiveness than the non-tattooed group (Pozgain 2004). An overview of autopsy reports also revealed that persons with tattoos appear to die earlier than those without. A negative tattoo may suggest a predisposition to violent death, but is eclipsed by the presence of any tattoo (Carson 2014).
      Kim: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1781185
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Carroll: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12042538
      Pozgain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15119003
      Carson: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24926092
      Impulsiveness, increased risk taking behavior, increased change of death = Lack of foresight
      Body modifications = mental illness
      There are links between tattoos and psychiatric disorders such as depression (Heywood, 2012), eating disorders (Carroll, 2002), borderline personality disorder (Raspa, 1990), neuroticism (Pozgain, 2004) and increased risk of suicide (Carroll, 2002). Seven or more piercings, or intimate piercings, described higher risk behaviors and emotional distress (Owen 2013). In high school students, tattoos correlate with suicidal idealization, suicidal attempts, and depression (Yen 2012).
      Raspa: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2333825
      Owen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23938068

  25. I have one tattoo for a dead friend and a nose ring and those two things make me a boring selfish slut?! Wtf is this?! Im not sure how getting a tattoo for a friend who was murdered makes me a selfish slut. Please tell me. Let me guess the guy who wrote this gets told no so often he’s bitter against women. Oh and does this list apply to men or is it completely acceptable for them to have tattoos and piercings?

    1. I have one tattoo for a dead friend and a nose ring and those two things make me a boring selfish slut?!

      Having to permanently print a milestone about someone else on your body, and harpooning metal on a very visible location is all about “drawing attention to yourself”. Much like trolling sites, it is an indication of low self-image to the point that you need to do all sorts of things get noticed even if it that attention is negative.. Slut? Well, if you have to put yourself on display like that it certainly isn’t less slutty than those that do not.
      X X X X X X X

      Wtf is this?! Im not sure how getting a tattoo for a friend who was murdered makes me a selfish slut.

      That’s being selfish because this thread is about the general trend between tats and attitude. It isn’t about “you” and your single and effectively unverifiable story doesn’t make that trend false. Also, you are just trying make it about “you” and that is “selfish”. Yes.
      Slut? Well, you are openly sharing private details with the Online world. That’s somewhat like how sluts act.
      X X X X X X X

      Please tell me. Let me guess the guy who wrote this gets told no so often he’s bitter against women.

      Yep. Like the standard butt-hurt troll you need to invent stories about how awful someone is, when you don’t agree with what they say. Personal attacks like that are what people who know they can’t refute something do. Apparently this article has hit a nerve with you because it tells a truth you don’t like.
      X X X X X X X

      Oh and does this list apply to men or is it completely acceptable for them to have tattoos and piercings?

      The problem with most feminists and social justice warriors is that they need to pretend that men and women are “equal” in every way. Right. Even individual people are not the same. Why would they have the Olympics if “everyone were equal”? What like training will make everyone a 200m champ? You morons are really something.
      Men and women are fundamentally different. This is very apparent physically. Many visible traits are seen differently between the sexes. Sculpted beards can look great on guys. When you can show everyone that most people think it is “equally” attractive on women, then you may have a point. Until then…. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
      You trolls are all so monumentally stupid.

    2. From the good book itself regarding tattoos:
      Leviticus 28: You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD. 29: Do
      not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will
      not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness.…

    3. Not so awesome.
      Tattoos indicate slutty behavior
      Being tattooed is associated with greater numbers of lifetime sexual partners (Heywood 2012), earlier sexual initiation, higher frequency of sexual intercourse and increased preference for oral sex (Nowosielski 2012). In adolescents, tattoos also correlate with the likelihood of having unprotected sex (Yen, 2012), but not in adults (Nowosielski 2012).
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Nowosielski: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22616886
      Yen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726901
      Tattoos indicate lack of foresight
      Tattoos indicate impulsiveness (Kim, 1991). In students, tattooing is associated with risk-taking behaviors, including smoking and cannabis use (Heywood, 2012). Participants with tattoos or body piercings were more likely to have engaged in risk-taking behaviors and at greater degrees of involvement than those without either. These included gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity, and suicide.
      Gateway drug use was associated with younger age of both tattooing and body piercing. Hard drug use was associated with number of body piercings (Carroll 2002). In Croatian prisoners, tattoos correlated with lower IQs and those possessing them demonstrated significantly higher levels of impulsiveness than the non-tattooed group (Pozgain 2004). An overview of autopsy reports also revealed that persons with tattoos appear to die earlier than those without. A negative tattoo may suggest a predisposition to violent death, but is eclipsed by the presence of any tattoo (Carson 2014).
      Kim: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1781185
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Carroll: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12042538
      Pozgain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15119003
      Carson: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24926092
      Impulsiveness, increased risk taking behavior, increased change of death = Lack of foresight
      Body modifications = mental illness
      There are links between tattoos and psychiatric disorders such as depression (Heywood, 2012), eating disorders (Carroll, 2002), borderline personality disorder (Raspa, 1990), neuroticism (Pozgain, 2004) and increased risk of suicide (Carroll, 2002). Seven or more piercings, or intimate piercings, described higher risk behaviors and emotional distress (Owen 2013). In high school students, tattoos correlate with suicidal idealization, suicidal attempts, and depression (Yen 2012).
      Raspa: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2333825
      Owen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23938068

    4. WTF. A friend?? Wow – wicked virtue signaling just there. The nose ring signal you are a slut which love to be dominated – nose rings are historically used for animals and slaves. With a chain or rope attached to the nose ring – its easy to conflict great great pain, to control the animals, slaves or in modern time, sluts.

  26. What is this? Have you not lived in Los Angeles where plenty of women have tattoos and are totally cool. Huh? Maybe in the Midwest it’s different but on the west coast it’s just art.

    1. What is this? Have you not lived in Los Angeles where plenty of women have tattoos and are totally cool. Huh? Maybe in the Midwest it’s different but on the west coast it’s just art.

      Oh look! It’s the “Dr. Phil” troll from years ago. Sorry kid, but the science is out there. It can be “art” but it says a lot about the person behind it (and not all of that is “positive”).

  27. All these points are inaccurate. You can not use your experiences with one girlfriend and maybe a few other girls you’ve encountered to generalize why all girls get tattoos and piercings. There are people out there who desperately want to show it off, but there are even more out there where you would not even know. Furthermore, the same shit can be said for guys who do it: they’re selfish, they want attention, they think they’re now naturally interesting and exciting… But you don’t know everyone’s history or reasons. Also, what is wrong with doing things for yourself? Wouldn’t you get a haircut for the same reason, or buy yourself a new pair of shoes. Also, just because an individual has tattoos and piercings, does not automatically mean they’re more sexually promiscuous. Besides that, fuck off about someone else’s sex life. And I guess people who have piercings and tattoos are mentally ill and a bigger threat to society than people who shoot up public places?

    1. All these points are inaccurate.

      All of your sock puppets are obvious. They nearly always have their “first” post here and those posts are the same junk arguments that have been refuted every time you post them.
      X X X X X X

      You can not use your experiences with one girlfriend and maybe a few other girls you’ve encountered to generalize why all girls get tattoos and piercings.

      …..you CAN if those experiences match with what the science says, and there’s lots of studies that back up what the article points to. You’ve tried that inapplicable argument many times already. All you are doing is “argumentum ad nauseam”…. You think that repeating a lie over and over will make it the truth.
      B-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.
      X X X X X X

      There are people out there who desperately want to show it off, but there are even more 2out there where you would not even know.

      So? Just because they hide things that tell you lots about their personality doesn’t mean it isn’t telling the truth about that personality. “Logic” much? No. Didn’t think so.
      X X X X X X

      Furthermore, the same shit can be said for guys who do it: they’re selfish, they want attention, they think they’re now naturally interesting and exciting… But you don’t know everyone’s history or reasons.

      That’s the same old crap argument of the “womyn strong!” types. You think that women are men are the same, yet a simple test shows this to be false. Yep. Do sculpted beards look sexy on women? Do slender arms and delicate hands look good on men? You are lying if you say yes to either of those things. So…. Men and women are viewed differently because they are FUNDAMENTALLY different. So much for your “she-quality” bullcrap. You feminuts are so easy to refute.
      X X X X X X

      Also, what is wrong with doing things for yourself?

      Dummies like you always try these “straw man arguments”. No one said it is wrong to do something for yourself. What the article talks about is that doing things without consideration for others, as in ONLY for yourself is …….. S-E-L-F-I-S-H. You know, it’s like trolling and posting with sock puppets to say the same wrong thoughts thinking you can make it seem like you are right. That is selfish and an indication of an inflated ego.

      Wouldn’t you get a haircut for the same reason, or buy yourself a new pair of shoes.

      Haircuts and shoes are normally visible things, and they are rarely “permanent”. Past emotional stories, especially the “I was so hurt” types are not normally visible and wearing them like an advertisement is definitely screaming for attention. Wild haircuts and loud shoes do that too. So you’re actually supporting the writer’s argument. Dummy.
      X X X X X X

      Also, just because an individual has tattoos and piercings, does not automatically mean they’re more sexually promiscuous.

      While any template is not perfect, the amount of tattoos on a woman’s body correlates well with sexual promiscuity. That’s been proven by science. You’re full of shit. That’s being proven by your regular use of sock puppets telling the same lies.
      X X X X X X

      Besides that, fuck off about someone else’s sex life.

      Besides all of this, fuck off about trolling on the supported argument by this writer. You’re a loser.
      X X X X X X

      And I guess people who have piercings and tattoos are mentally ill

      They certainly are not as mentally sound as those that don’t need to stamp their emotional history on their shoulder, idiot. Mentally ill? That would be those who come here over and over to post the same bullcrap arguments and try to hide it by using a new sock puppet each time.
      X X X X X X

      and a bigger threat to society than people who shoot up public places?

      Nice try, troll. That is called the fallacy of relative privation. Look it up and may not make a fool of yourself again by trying it.
      While you are not a threat, trolls like you are the typical nuisance to the Internet and society. Your anarchist ways are why you get no respect. Try and grow up, loser.

    2. Every. Fucking. Time.
      Tattoos indicate slutty behavior
      Being tattooed is associated with greater numbers of lifetime sexual partners (Heywood 2012), earlier sexual initiation, higher frequency of sexual intercourse and increased preference for oral sex (Nowosielski 2012). In adolescents, tattoos also correlate with the likelihood of having unprotected sex (Yen, 2012), but not in adults (Nowosielski 2012).
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Nowosielski: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22616886
      Yen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726901
      Tattoos indicate lack of foresight
      Tattoos indicate impulsiveness (Kim, 1991). In students, tattooing is associated with risk-taking behaviors, including smoking and cannabis use (Heywood, 2012). Participants with tattoos or body piercings were more likely to have engaged in risk-taking behaviors and at greater degrees of involvement than those without either. These included gateway drug use, hard drug use, sexual activity, and suicide.
      Gateway drug use was associated with younger age of both tattooing and body piercing. Hard drug use was associated with number of body piercings (Carroll 2002). In Croatian prisoners, tattoos correlated with lower IQs and those possessing them demonstrated significantly higher levels of impulsiveness than the non-tattooed group (Pozgain 2004). An overview of autopsy reports also revealed that persons with tattoos appear to die earlier than those without. A negative tattoo may suggest a predisposition to violent death, but is eclipsed by the presence of any tattoo (Carson 2014).
      Kim: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1781185
      Heywood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153289
      Carroll: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12042538
      Pozgain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15119003
      Carson: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24926092
      Impulsiveness, increased risk taking behavior, increased change of death = Lack of foresight
      Body modifications = mental illness
      There are links between tattoos and psychiatric disorders such as depression (Heywood, 2012), eating disorders (Carroll, 2002), borderline personality disorder (Raspa, 1990), neuroticism (Pozgain, 2004) and increased risk of suicide (Carroll, 2002). Seven or more piercings, or intimate piercings, described higher risk behaviors and emotional distress (Owen 2013). In high school students, tattoos correlate with suicidal idealization, suicidal attempts, and depression (Yen 2012).
      Raspa: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2333825
      Owen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23938068

    1. Single mam / living it to the fullest. Alimony. All you husbands recourses / all belongs to you now. Slut.

  28. Hello RoK and readers
    I just read after this, *another* article on sluts and hypergamy. How it ruins society and women. The detriments they suffer via STI’s, depression, ostracism.. Etc.
    This is a general comment for the manospheres. Something I have noticed is you are all wrong. All the articles. All the comments. They are all wishful thinking.
    Sluts are not depressed, not suffering from social ostracism. Russians and Eastern European women who are prized here for being ‘traditional’ are not in the slightest (I fucked several traditional women in London from the Ukraine, Montenegro, Russia etc).
    Most of the sluts I know who have been fucked by multiple Google’s are getting married to betas who are providing nice homes for them, and who are immensely pleased to wife a slut. My friend has his stag do next week. He is marrying a slut with blue eyes and blonde hair who has a brown baby with curly brown hair and brown eyes.
    From all my reading of the manosphere I don not see anybody addressing reality, I think most of the articles are completely wishful thinking.
    Women are not having a tough time, they are lapping it up. Betas are lapping it up just for the opportunity to put a ring on a slut. Googles are having the greatest of times. Fucking multiple Blondes, having lots of brown babies, and being subsidised by the betas who wife the ho’s and raise their babies.
    I’m not being negative, I appreciate what everyone is trying to do in the manosphere, I just think it’s wishful thinking and not based in reality. I don’t know if anybody agrees but I don’t see anything being done. May be it is just my country but things are not getting better, they are getting worse.

  29. Women are crazy and stupid and their piercings and tattoos are a manifestation of their mental state.

  30. As expected, the troll-gang of dERp are suppressing posts that they don’t want people to see. Here is something that they gang-flagged:
    In response to dERp:
    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/here_it_comes_trumps_100-day_plan_to_make_america_great_again_20161110#comment-3004178762

    You said, “I can point you to several posters right here that align with my point of view” Like these commenters who followed me here? (Sheplorable😈✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ, Yeah, Obama’s a Communist, Resisting Expectations✓ᵛᵈ, Bucket List, OHJonesy, AbsltlNtdERpsBlddyTmpnPc, Cletus B Neckbeard✓Vindicated, GaryE, Johnny dERpnaught, Wishinonehandism, Jed of the Basket, Dale_Jones, Deplorable Denial, ThePhoenixRises✓) That’s not an answer and that’s not many commenters. Including you, that’s 15.

    Your attempt at a rebuttal is typically fraught with the poor reasoning that we have come to “expect” from you, dERp. Firstly, what you put forth as a challenge was evidence of a body of support for my notions here. As such, people who deliberately offer an “up-vote” is a good proxy of this concurrence. You then attempt to dismiss that by claiming it is not significant number of individuals. Of course, that is deliberately out-of-context. As you gloat in your response (linked above), this is a liberal-friendly site. Yet, here I am with “15+ up-voters” compared to your paltry average of 2 or 3. That is the statistic you are attempting to ignore. This shows the kind of —DISHONEST— argument that propagandists like you resort to.
    So, as maintained, that —IS— an answer, and it is supportive of what I said.
    = = = = =

    Let’s use your logic. Many commenters think you are a misogynistic homophobic bigot.

    That isn’t “my” logic, but rather your attempt at another straw man argument. While many commenters may indeed share your emotional argument that I am this or that, the fact that few shy of your minions (yes, it is obvious who those people are since your few up-votes are always the same individuals) agree with your feelings is telling.
    In fact, —THAT— is my foundation: that within the “expected” audience of the venue, as this is on a very liberal-leaning site, you do not generate anywhere near the support for your views as “expected”. It should also be noted that, in most cases, when your “views” are confronted, you quickly retreat to making disparaging remarks on the character of those who dare to question your “authority”.
    It also doesn’t surprise anyone that extremists like you will label anyone that opposes you as any and all of those things. You lot need to de-humanize critics so that you can justify your personal attacks.
    = = = = =

    I am not defeated in the slightest.

    You can “say” whatever you want, dERp, but what the reasonable person sees in your actions does not support that boast. Even a cursory look at your behavior shows that you merely repeat your false claim regardless of how your critic has proven his or her case. You don’t just do it in this case, you have a long history of this.
    Also, you will employ whatever underhanded method at your disposal to harass posters that oppose your point of view. This includes, but is not exclusive to: —A— calling for sycophants to name-call, insult and basically pester anyone that puts up arguments you cannot honestly refute (which is most of the time); —B— Gang-flagging of comments that you don’t like (and attempting to camouflage that by crying about it when it starts to happen to you); —C— Whining to moderators when you meet resistance that doesn’t bow to your usual bullying.
    You’re not trying to understand or even find any truths. You are about promoting your agenda. When your false foundations are questioned, you will attack others, or get your cohorts to do it, and then play victim. If anyone even mentions those underhanded ways, you and your minions pretend that someone is whining and ridicule them. The irony is that you and your cohorts are the ones that go running to mods when you can’t “win” by attacking others.
    = = = = =

    Your ignorance has vindicated my argument. You’re the childish troll

    Lol. Please, you can’t even fool the most devout ultra-liberal with that lie, dERp. Your clear —DISHONESTY— really shows through. You are surprisingly childish to the point that I really think that you have some underlying condition that prevents you from admitting truths that defy your ideas. That is not a denigration. It is something that is sadly demonstrated in your habitual lying.
    You’re the troll and that is proven by the vast number of legitimate sites where you have been banned to doing essentially what you are doing right here, right now.
    = = = = =

    and you thought you could come here to a leftist site and push me around.

    Stop projecting dERp. You’re the one that consistently seeks to bully people. I’ve come here like anywhere else to challenge misinformation and expose the —DISHONESTY— that is always found lurking behind it.
    = = = = =

    How did that work out for you? Not so well. Time to crawl back to daddy at RoK. You’ve done your best and lost. You can accept your participation ribbon on the way out the door.

    While I seek not to escalate into a personal contest, you seem determined to make any discussion into a grudge match. Apparently it’s worked out quite well for me. Thanks for asking. I’ve been able to capture quite a lot of evidence of your poor conduct. Not only did you lose this latest debate, you have embarrassed yourself by retreating to basically lying in order to “appear” the victor. This isn’t like a verbal exchange, where you can basically “shout down” your critic (although this latest “gang-flagging” by your team of trolls is a version of vigilante censorship). It is a written one that is documented and therefore much easier to prove wrongdoing and falsehood to everyone else.
    Your bluster is a bluff and it shows. The proof of your hostile and unreasonable nature is seen in the long list of sites that have removed your posting privileges (don’t even pretend that this needs to be “proven” — anyone that has heard of you has seen this). Be as ignorant of reality as you wish, dERp, but you really aren’t fooling anyone.
    = = = = =

    FYI, here’s a link to your post that works, https://disqus.com/home/discussion/truthdig/here_it_comes_trumps_100_day_plan_to_make_america_great_again_truthdig/#comment-3001763079

    My links work just fine, thank you. Your condescending assistance is neither requested nor required. Oh, and if you decide to gang-flag this into a deletion, be aware that I will be posting this at other sites where you cannot exert such control.

    1. Those loser left wingnuts on that site are all about promoting their *speshshull* narrative. Anything that challenges their view must be removed from their *safe space*.

    2. It is interesting that she is always hollering about “gangs” when she is the original “gang” leader.
      Yes, my own independent research on her has shown that all of the people who up vote her regularly are regular posters on her blog and channel.
      Most are people who rarely make a comment outside of their troll cave, but regularly follow dERp around like attention-seeking lapdogs. One more than one occasion I have pointed out the up votes coming from people who never post on the thread they up vote her on. Others HAVE started posting on their own, most notably Starfire/Mensch59 (either a husband/wife team or the same person with two personas)and Mr. G.
      When I made the mistake of challenging her tactics on Bede’s Beats, she immediately banned me, and her fellow trolls started posting nasty comments to me — already knowing I couldn’t reply. I pointed this out several times to her on channels she didn’t control and she said she’d un-banned me and invited me back — then called me a coward for refusing the “invitation” to stick my hand back intp the fishbowl full of piranhas.

      1. dERp is a ringleader for a small but highly motivated gang of haters. The pattern of orbiting near, but rarely forging out on their own you see from various sycophants points to sock-puppetry. Another clue is when, given a higher rate of posting, the puppeteer may accidentally have one puppet answer for another, or for the puppeteer. I’ve seen her do this from time to time.
        Some of the sycophants are likely other people (each with their own entourage of sock puppets) but on the most part, it’s usually just dERp and one or two others at best. You can see that she usually retreats when there are multiple critics, and when she does, so do all her sock puppets. She and her supposed allies also curiously post at around the same time. That is a big clue of a sock puppet army.
        Her whole game is like that of astroturfing (where deniers attempt to make it look like there is a much larger body of people that agree with their often extremist, and always nonsensical views). She uses sock puppets to be rude and obnoxious as she likes, and somewhat preserve the reputation of her main membership (so she can continue to play “victim”).
        Her malfunction is that she relies on the basic premises of pretending to be a “victim” (or the self-appointed champion for victims throughout the galaxy) and that her concepts are unquestionably correct. If that sounds a lot like a crazed fundamentalist attitude, well, it is.
        She is a self-serving propagandist (lol — is there any other type?) and will use every underhanded trick in the book to push her agenda.

        1. Geezus, the Reverend Gerald Palmer passed recently from the realm of Disqus. Would you mind following my recent posting history back so that you can leave a note in the guest book. I recently gave him a memorial service on my channel.
          It would mean so much to dERp if you could check in and leave a message.

      1. Yeah, … I’m stalking you for a minute here. Do you mind? So many whine about stalkers, I don’t care if they don’t pounce on me every chance they get. I know some run and beg for it … I’m trying to be sure I don’t resemble one of them. Haha … Have a good one, Shep. 🙂
        **Hmmm, this is interesting topic (bookmark)

        1. Right !!
          I like to consider it aggressive friendship and I most certainly do not go out of my way to harass others. Those that enjoy doing so with me … quite frankly, they are easy enough to ignore. 😉
          CU = L8r = P-Out

  31. what a disgusting article, you’ve generalised your relationships with two women to all women with tattoos and piercings. your opinions are atrocious and judgemental, and if i were you i’d see a therapist and not attempt to deal with my relationships by slagging off my exes on the internet and talking about mental illness like its a joke, you scumbag.

    1. What a disgusting troll you are. You’ve ignored the underlying message and instead try to focus on attacking messenger. The science supports the notion that lots of tats means higher probability of bad personality. It’s just like people who call others “atrocious and judgmental”….. that usually means that person is a self-righteous idiot.
      You should stick to your anti-psychotics instead of making a fool out of yourself by trolling articles and posting stupid comments like yours.
      You’re scum.

    2. My first anal was with an obese over tattooed slut with red colored hair. Im not very found of anal / but her vagina was huuuge and sloppy. I went for some tighter environment. She did not complain – cried some after when I told her I was leaving . I have had two of those tattoo sluts. 🙂

    1. Wouldn’t it be nice if Eri would apply that standard when she visits your channels?

  32. Couldn’t agree more. I avoid any woman with a tattoo. Imagine my horror when my wife, now ex wife, arrived home one day with a tatt. Never asked me, just did it. I didn’t speak to her for a week. Tatts disgust me.

  33. Wow sorry that you’re having so much trouble getting laid that you have to vent your frustration in ill-versed articles that have absolutely no proper sources except your shitty life. Did you ever think that maybe all these things happened because I don’t know, you’re just a shitty dude? Sorry about the micro-penis though but you know what they say, it’s how you use it.

    1. Wow, you’re a sorry cvnt that is having trouble accepting that tatties correlate to personality issues. You’re so butt-hurt that you need to vent your frustration in the usual sock-puppet argumentum ad hominem. You have absolutely no concept shy of your shitty point of view. Did you ever think that maybe you are b1tchy because — I don’t know — you’re just a skanky idiot? You resort to the usual grade three “small dick” insult, so you know that they say, takes a cvnt to make such cvnty comments.

      1. My brother was born with a conjoined twin.
        BZZZZZZZZZ
        He has two heads.
        BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
        He lives in @em_cl:disqus’s sock drawer.
        BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
        He keeps her busy.
        BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
        Maybe hat is why she only has one post.
        BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  34. Well I’ll tell you one thing…I have 3 tattoos and I’m certainly not a slit. I’m actually a virgin and I’m 23 years old!

  35. I learned this the hard way, if you don’t believe what this articles says, just date a girl with tattoo and you’ll say damn everything this article says is right. just like I did.

  36. dude, I don’t really like tats on girls either, but just because your small penis wasn’t enough for some chick with tats, doesn’t mean you know anything about the other millions of girls that have them, all I can say is this article really shows how ignorant and insecure you are…good luck with that…lol

  37. I don’t know about all this psychology. I just know I find women with tattoos and piercings unattractive.

  38. Well said. Honestly, I can’t argue one bit with any of the points you made.

    1. I’m here to help the girls that would argue.
      BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
      I am the closest thing they will ever have to an alpha.
      BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
      D-Cells are the next best thing.
      BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  39. Never wanted tattoos or multiple piercings and still dont have any. Always thought it was trashy especially after a friend of mine introduced me to a tattoo artist who said that he’d ink me “for free” if I let him fuck me. Mind you I was 16yo at the time and he was probably in his late 40s to early 50s.. Coincidentally my friend had a couple of tattoos by him… wonder how she got those. lol

  40. Some pretty large generalizations and assumptions, but to each their own. Just like everything in moderation.

  41. @disqus_DkgLYDUtpF:disqus
    BZZZZZZ
    My postings were nicer than the ones to which I responded.
    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
    You have a rogue mod.
    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5ee9506d16a93387a70e9fe0413fbba11f0967d15e3129cabba1b491f63ff92b.jpg
    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/28b7893e221d88a1adb62e00f27b96bc4093cb1dbcf5c6809fbd58dbff5c19d8.jpg
    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-politicalrhetoricbusters/its_raining_tears_in_libtard_land/
    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-whackechochamber/with_invites_messed_up_only_8_to_10_discussions_at_a_time_showing_and_on_primarily_just_recommends_a/
    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
    Mods like that drive your numbers down, not up.
    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
    There were concerns when you made her a mod.
    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    1. @wishinonehandism:disqus
      BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
      Should my posts have been removed from PRB and WEC?
      BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  42. B: Failure to launch. Address may be incorrect?
    Off topic but what the hey! Two weeks till the Three Eyed Raven et al on GoT Season Seven!

  43. This doesn’t make any sense at all. Women are always great. Naked, half naked, dressed or tattooed with swastikas or mogen david symbols, whatever. In my mind its all iconography. They can call me anything they want, they’re fucking girls, I’m a super alpha male what’s the worse they can do kiss me on the cheek lol.
    Are you guys GAY or something?

    1. You don’t make sense at all. The point is “relative” hotness. Get back to school and finish grade 8, moron.

      1. you sure told me like your older brother that hates girls. ( finger snap )

        1. Your response makes as little sense as does most troll responses. Try again…

        2. You’re still not making much sense. What kind of drugs are you neglecting to take?

  44. American dudes are mostly gay, all the identity political games ( binary noir blanc syndrome or just general retardation ) all the nonsense bashing women all points to one thing GAY.
    All the sports with men humping each other to score points. hahaha
    I even see images of dudes putting their penis shoes in each others mouths
    GAAAAAAAAAAAAAY and incredibly stupid.

        1. That’s a mindset for broke people that die 50 – 75. I’m already working in the after life.

        2. Your trolling is the mindset of butt hurt little whiners. You -wish- that people who call you out for being a troll are “broke”. In reality, you’re the one with little where-with-all. Go on… whine more.

  45. It’s not a liberal/conservatard thing. I know plenty of conservative bitches who are tatted up like dirty, trashy whores. Wait in line at any Trump rally. White Trash City. Donald Trump is dumb as dirt and so is his whole dishonest family so they could definitely be tattoo monsters. Trump’s stupid orange skin is probably just one great big tattoo. It would explain a lot.

  46. I’m so glad that men like this one right here are a dying Fking breed! It is actually taboo to not have a tattoo and most business owners, doctors, lawyers, teachers All have tattoos 😂 your an idiot
    May you experience a black out and wake up to a tattoo of small penis syndrome on your forehead. Hahaha

    1. I’m so glad that trolls like you right here are dead in the head. It is actually idiotic to print your psychological hang-ups permanently on your body. Most business owners, doctors, lawyers, teachers do not have tattoos. Where are you getting your bull-crap stats from? Oh yeah, you are making shit up. May you experience yet another hallucination that you are a sentient being since the real world is too much for child-like moron’s like you. Wake up and realize that “small penis” insults are what hurt little girls sling when they know they don’t have a real point to make.
      AhhAHAHAHHAHHA.

      1. Hmmmm the practitioner I’ve been seeing for the last ten years has tattoos all over his body and the ones on his hands are clear as day Fucking visible does this mean he’s not a good doctor bc he has a drawing on his skin? Your fucking ignorant. I’ve never encountered any issues with any positions or career paths based on my tattoos. If it’s your looks that get you places I feel sorry for you.

        1. Hmmmmm…. the practitioner you’ve been seeing is a man. This article is about women with tatts. You’re changing the topic like the usual idiotic troll. That means it is clear as fucking day that you really don’t have a legitimate argument. “You’re” fucking ignorant. Whether or not you personally have encountered any issues is both unverifiable and just anecdotal. If you don’t get that most “first impressions” means a lot, then you are just in denial.
          No one feels sorry for hostile little idiots like you.

        2. It’s cowardly to be “replying” to your own post. LOL, why are you trying to change the subject to “feelings” instead of why you are making that childish remark about “small penises”. Besides, I’m not offended. It is you that is clearly offended by the article, troll.
          ROTFLMFAO.

    1. What the hell, troll. You are messed up if you think that more and more tats don’t point to “issues”.

      1. I am referring to his manner of attitude towards some aspects of having body art/modifications.

        1. …….and I am referring to how this article is backed up by science. Whatever the “attitude” of the writer is doesn’t change that.

  47. People should be more concerned with serious issues like people with no tattoos who take jobs and hurt children and animals daily!!! Stop focusing on artistic choices people have the freedom to make and hurt no one in the process. Get a Fucking life

    1. People like you should be aware that you are just applying the FALLACY OF RELATIVE PRIVATION. Stop thinking that, just because there are other problems in the world, that no one is allowed to mention the correlation between tats and bad personality traits.
      No one is stopping anyone from “artistic freedom”. However, YOU are attacking people for having an opinion (that is also backed up by science).
      Get a fucking clue, troll.

  48. News for people will poorly developed neural pathways typically die out mid 60’s.
    black
    white
    black
    white
    girl
    boy
    girl
    boy
    black
    white
    black
    white
    girl
    boy
    girl
    boy
    see the pattern
    no?

    1. The pattern every sees is how you are nothing but a butt-hurt troll. Do you even see how childish you are?

      1. I Love to Write, lets keep going, everyone works for me, this must be your shift.

        1. That’s really pathetic trolling. Come on. Even a kid can do better than that!

        2. you don’t get
          it
          no one owns
          the internet
          the universe
          wants we to buy
          it
          first .gov has to
          take ownership
          and I buy it from them
          I really love the internet
          someone has to own it:)
          hahahha:)

        3. coke
          money
          why people
          need to cook
          it and make it
          shit
          its just retarded
          american
          manufacturing
          turn a good thing into
          junk is very American
          no one smokes crack
          in europe
          asia
          africa
          Australia
          only in
          america
          they add stuff
          found under
          the sink
          and put it in
          their bodies
          hahahhaa
          ahahaha
          what a joke

        4. You’re the one coming here and posting, cunt. You care about this and it shows………….. No one is following ***you***. It’s more like you are seeing things in the shadows that do not actually exist. Stop with the drugs, loser.

        5. the internet
          is free
          for
          everybody
          even the Bourgeoisie
          Shut
          UP!
          its not hard
          to find out who
          you are!
          have your
          ass in county
          keep it up!

        6. Keep trying, cunt. No one said anything about the “internet”. I said you were specifically coming here. You’re not doing too well as a troll.

        7. hypebeast
          is an internet
          forum on the
          spherical earth
          open to all
          inhabitants
          this is clear
          you must not
          be free that’s
          the problem
          you need to work
          on that

        8. You talk very much like someone who tries to act superior, but shows that he or she knows she is inferior. You’re not fooling anyone, idiot.

        9. You are unable to stay on a conversation path…….. another sign that you are mentally ill.

        10. right
          go follow
          chief keef
          or follow
          pfizer
          this is art
          im not your
          friend
          girl use mental
          health as a weapon
          against men
          try again

        11. You are trying way-y-y-y too hard to be witty, and failing miserably. I never said or suggested you were a friend. You’re using a straw man argument —- like most SJW trolls. You are mentally challenged and it shows…… keep trying, cunt.

        12. That troll is probably one of the ones that got beaten many times on the old Tattoo thread. Talk about having personality problems. Lol.

        13. go swallow
          some pills
          with your
          friends
          I create reality
          so I don’t know
          what a troll
          is a priori
          its a myth of a myth
          of a myth
          in your silly
          retarded
          probably
          american head

        14. You really *are* mentally ill. The problem is that you *think* being obtuse is bothering people. It isn’t. It just shows how childish you are. Keep trying, cunt.

        15. Look… no one cares what you *think* you are. What you are is a mental case and really just a cunt. Get lost, loser.

        16. troll
          troll
          look at this
          prole
          on the dole
          can’t afford
          Knoll
          furniture
          lol