Comment Corner

What you need to know before you know you need it.

 Page 1 of 1
 [ 5 replies ] 

Permanent LinkPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:56 pm 
Folks,

Image

First off, to those who nominated me for the medal, a fond thank you. I just does what I does and that's all that I does.

To my loving detractors,

1. I agree, winning isn't everything. And that leads into a two-fold argument here. Firstly, I don't just win, I also trash-talk. I have a unique style what impresses some and irks others. Frankly, I enjoy my style, that's why I do it. Secondly, for those out there who believe that winning isn't everything, you'll notice that these people are the ones who generally don't stray far from offering up their own opinions on things rather than substantiate and prove with evidence concrete ideas. For them, no, winning isn't everything because they're not arguing facts. In fact, winning isn't even part of the equation to them because nobody can measure the greater success of a debate when the evidence is "Nuh-uh" and "Uh-huh" regarding sophisticated topics like the efficacy of a public health care system. These people don't actually research things like wait times in American hospitals, cost per average family of private health-care or any sort of structured review of successful treatment per patient requiring treatment. You know, the sort of research one should do when contemplating such a massive change to the operation of society in Canada. Instead, they offer up an anecdote that their Aunt Suzy had to wait 2 months to have a growth on her foot removed and had to limp three times a day to Bingo, therefore, we need a private system. Fuck me.

What I do is argue from the facts. Also, I don't stray into advanced topics about which I'm unclear and am required to do some research before hand. I'll certainly make factual declarations about George Orwell, but I won't hazard a guess at what I think makes the best kind of tank for desert warfare. When it comes to those topics, especially ones like science or the law, there are factually correct answers irrespective of people's wishful thinking on their factualness.

2. Style and content can be divorced. Some of you, my loving detractors, believe that a driver shouldn't be awarded the checkered-flag if they find the car ugly. It doesn't matter to them if he raced the fastest, they don't like what they see and impose other criteria unrelated to successfully meeting a contest such that a winner is denied. What I read from this is that you can't attack the content because it's more solid than Superman's boner, so you attack the style, hoping your criticism of it will splash onto the content.

It won't. Nice try.

3. Quit being hypocritical. My style isn't really all that different from others on this board. I'm simply more overt and don't bullshit myself about what I do or how I post. I toss bombs because I think it's funny. Other people on here like to believe that they hold the moral highground, but ultimately, do nothing different. Take a look at the average Canadian politics thread on here. Innumerable times, people will define a conservative as a war-mongering, bigoted, bible-thumping, environment hating, big-business dick-sucking bastard or a liberal as a limp-wristed, criminal-loving, head-in-the-sand, chicken-little, pointy-headed, tax-and-spend, forced tolerance nanny-stater. And then? They'll slap that label on others. To drive the point home, they'll usually insert "typical" before applying the label. Consequently, all they're doing is insulting the living fuck out of a label and then identifying people as belonging to that label. It's a two-step insult where as I just come right out and call somebody a bog-humper.

Also, I certainly don't pretend to hold the moral highground because I don't directly insult certain people. I don't passive-aggressively single people out for transgressions rampantly done by others, in that thread. People who passive-aggressively insult are no different from me, they're just cowards that can readily lie to themselves.

Anyway, that's my message to you, my loving detractors. Here's a tip. Try looking in the mirror and deciding if you should really be ready to cast the first stone.

Lord knows that if you're not, I'll be here to point it out.

Gotta luv me,

Dayseed.

_________________
Nam eloquentiam quae admirationem non habet nullam iudico


 Profile  
 


Comments
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Online
Profile
Permanent LinkPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:31 pm 

As per usual you are your own biggest fan. Nice pat on the back.


Permanent LinkPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:53 pm 

Power, Control, Domination, Subjugation sound like anyone you know? Sleep tight i am working on that pillow for you.

_________________
Image


Permanent LinkPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:26 am 

No offense but you guys are talking this waaaayyy too seriously... Its just a medal given in Cyberspace...

-Mario-

_________________
“Those who stand for nothing, fall for anything. ”


Permanent LinkPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:11 pm 

To my loving detractors,

I guess I called your responses correctly huh? Not a one of you managed to put even a dent in the content, all you did was gripe about style.

Mario,

What, you expected me to do something low-key about anything? ;)

_________________
Nam eloquentiam quae admirationem non habet nullam iudico


Permanent LinkPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 7:29 pm 

golf clap for Dayseed.

_________________
Image





 Page 1 of 1
 [ 5 replies ] 


 

Author
USER_AVATAR

Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (177)

Archives
- September 2008
ODE TO DUMMY MATT
   Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:12 pm

+ July 2008
+ May 2008
+ April 2008
+ March 2008
+ February 2008
+ January 2008
+ December 2007
+ November 2007
+ October 2007
+ September 2007
+ August 2007
+ July 2007
+ June 2007
+ May 2007
+ April 2007
+ March 2007
+ February 2007
+ January 2007
+ December 2006
+ November 2006
+ October 2006
+ September 2006
+ August 2006
+ July 2006
+ June 2006