Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

If the thread is full of nothing but obsessed saddos... and you’re the top poster in that thread full of obsessed saddos... doesn’t that make you the most obsessed saddo?

Only if I trawled your Twitter feeds for details about your personal life.

py2006

Insulting people because their opinion is different to yours or they call you out is not particularly clever.

Owryan

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

To be fair, LLMMLL did point out that O'Neill doesn't engage in debate.

LLMMLL, on the other hand, is more willing than anyone else to engage in debate - on this particular thread anyway.

It's not debate if all you do is try belittle the other posters

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Even if there were periodically few posts in don't believe those should go unchallenged.

I'm happy for the thread to be active with the low intelligence posts being called.out than for it to be a low activity cesspool.

And stop pretending your own posts aren't aggressive with your "hilarious" and "priceless".

When did I mention aggression?! If you perceive them to be just that, well it's simply your perception. I'm not pretending anything, I don't like your posts, your posting style or your attitude for that matter. It's full of double standards and hypocrisy, much like your favourite author and columnist LON.

LLMMLL

py2006 wrote: »

Insulting people because their opinion is different to yours or they call you out is not particularly clever.

I think you agree with me about this thread then. Thanks for the support.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Only if I trawled your Twitter feeds for details about your personal life.

Go ahead, my handle is @MiloYiannopoulous if you want to have a gawk.

To be fair though, for the most part the sentiment hasn't been aggressive. There have been a few, alright, that I've thought were overly aggressive, but for the most part, it hasn't..

And when you're spouting an ideology that could be seen as at odds with the underlying laws of nature upon which society is based perhaps you should expect resistance..

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

When did I mention aggression?! If you perceive them to be just that, well it's simply your perception. I'm not pretending anything, I don't like your posts, your posting style or your attitude for that matter. It's full of double standards and hypocrisy, much like your favourite author and columnist LON.

I don't like yours either. You don't deal with substantive points and instead rely on someone's "posting stats" to argue against them.

Omackeral

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

In fairness, this thread is full of humourless lads.

Just to come back to this and your Exhibit A talk. The above statement is made by someone who thinks Alison Spittle, she of Culchie Club fame, is hilarious. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, no further questions.

Hapax Legomenon

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

More than a few. Some of them have even described her as "dangerous".

Yes, i believe her ideology and the new wave feminist ideology in general is irrational and dangerous. It's based around demonising all western men and it's playing on bad experiences that women have had with a very small minority of men in their lives. Her commentary on a highly publicised ongoing trial recently could have had significant output on the outcome. All in the name of promoting a deluded agenda

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't like yours either. You don't deal with substantive points and instead rely on someone's "posting stats" to argue against them.

I don't really care if you do or not!

I dealt with your 'sunstantive points' weeks ago, the stats merely back up what I stated then. Posters like yourself were the ones actually keeping the thread alive.

Perhaps you should take a few deep breaths, seems like you're getting quite aggressive yourself.

As for substantive point avoidance, care to comment on your personal attack on me?

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

Just to come back to this and your Exhibit A talk. The above statement is made by someone who thinks Alison Spittle, she of Culchie Club fame, is hilarious. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, no further questions.

Oh look. Someone went through someones posting history to try and discredit them. What a surprise.

py2006

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't like yours either. You don't deal with substantive points and instead rely on someone's "posting stats" to argue against them.

At least you aren't being directly insulted.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Oh look. Someone went through someones posting history to try and discredit them. What a surprise.

Incorrect. Was on the thread as it was trending this morning. Popped in for a look and noticed our dear old friend was in there singing her praises. Just struck me as ironic as last night he was sarcastically lambasting the lads in here (and just the lads, mind you) of being “hilarious”. If Alison Spittle is his gauge for funny, then I just thought it was a bit... funny.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

I don't really care if you do or not!

I dealt with your 'sunstantive points' weeks ago, the stats merely back up what I stated then. Posters like yourself were the ones actually keeping the thread alive.

Perhaps you should take a few deep breaths, seems like you're getting quite aggressive yourself.

As for substantive point avoidance, care to comment on your personal attack on me?

You haven't dealt with substantive points at all. You're still pretending that a thread that has low activity but with ridiculous posts going unchallenged is the same as a thread that is active but the posts are challenged.

You're pretending that my aim is for the thread to disappear. However I recognise that won't happen and instead I contribute to challenge the silly posts.

As long as you continue to pretend the above then you haven't dealt with anything and I consider any post based on misrepresenting my position to be of low intelligence.

Now I get that people misunderstand each other on threads all the time and that in itself is fine. But this is at least the third time I've clarified the above so.......

LLMMLL

py2006 wrote: »

At least you aren't being directly insulted.

Neither is he. I referred to his post.

py2006

LLMMLL wrote: »

As long as you continue to pretend the above then you haven't dealt with anything and I consider any post based on misrepresenting my position to be of low intelligence. .

Insulting people who have a different view or question yours is an example of high intelligence?

Do you see the irony??

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

You haven't dealt with substantive points at all. You're still pretending that a thread that has low activity but with ridiculous posts going unchallenged is the same as a thread that is active but the posts are challenged.

You're pretending that my aim is for the thread to disappear. However I recognise that won't happen and instead I contribute to challenge the silly posts.

As long as you continue to pretend the above then you haven't dealt with anything and I consider any post based on misrepresenting my position to be of low intelligence.

Now I get that people misunderstand each other on threads all the time and that in itself is fine. But this is at least the third time I've clarified the above so.......

Right so, your comment is throw another insult and some mental gymnastics to justify it. Honestly starting to believe you are actually LON.

You had a fit weeks ago about posters questioning her mental health as a personal attack yet you're happy to do the same. As I said earlier, hypocritcal.

I said weeks ago that you WANTED the thread to disappear, pretty clear from your posts then, but you were in fact contributing to it's continued existence, now backed by stats!

LLMMLL

py2006 wrote: »

Insulting people who have a different view or question yours is an example of high intelligence?

Do you see the irony??

Not if the post in question is genuinely a low intelligence post.

I clarified a few times that I am happy to keep contributing to the thread to challenge the silly views.

So to continue to think that I'm somehow defeating my own aims by contributing to the thread after multiple clarifications just isn't very clever.

Ok Lo...LLMMLL..What would you say to my point that perhaps in complaining about a non existent rape culture the last few years, Louise & her ilk actually contributed to its manifestation..

Like, what we saw it the trial up north, and the division it caused..I don't think those sentiments were there before..A trial such as that would have been seen through a humanitarian lens, as opposed to a political lens..

What are your thoughts on that observation?..

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

I clarified a few times that I am happy to keep contributing to the thread to challenge the silly views.

Why though? What have you got to prove to a load of low intelligence, obsessed saddos?

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

I said weeks ago that you WANTED the thread to disappear, pretty clear from your posts then, but you were in fact contributing to it's continued existence, now backed by stats!

YOU said I wanted the thread to disappear.

But I've said multiple times that I don't. That I'd prefer it to be active with debate rather than low active with the echo chamber silly criticisms of her.

So your stats don't prove anything. Now it's at least the 4thtime I've had to clarify that.........

Also I've never questioned your memtal health. Do you know what mental health is?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ok Lo...LLMMLL..What would you say to my point that perhaps in complaining about a non existent rape culture the last few years, Louise & her ilk actually contributed to its manifestation..

Like, what we saw it the trial up north, and the division it caused..I don't think those sentiments were there before..A trial such as that would have been seen through a humanitarian lens, as opposed to a political lens..

What are your thoughts on that observation?..

Contributed to it in what sense? To the actions of the people involved on the night. Or the reactions of the public to the trial?

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

YOU said I wanted the thread to disappear.

But I've said multiple times that I don't. That I'd prefer it to be active with debate rather than low active with the echo chamber silly criticisms of her.

So your stats don't prove anything. Now it's at least the 4thtime I've had to clarify that.........

Also I've never questioned your memtal health. Do you know what mental health is?

There really is a significant amount of irony in you questioning my intelligence... Where did I say you questioned my mental health? You were clearly questioning my intelligence, aka a personal attack. You had quite a lot of say here when people questioned your(sorry LON'S) mental health, labelling it a personal attack which you disapproved of. A little hypocritical in light of insults today wouldn't you say?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Contributed to it in what sense? To the actions of the people involved on the night. Or the reactions of the public to the trial?

The reaction of the public..and the vitriol on both sides..the people who refused to see the grey area..it was either one or the other..

It was the first time I sensed what could have been considered a sense of a culture where people were excusing what could have been considered rape..

I took too long writing that sentence, but do you get me?..

deaddonkey15

py2006 wrote: »

Insulting people who have a different view or question yours is an example of high intelligence?

Do you see the irony??

He has made a number of references to intelligence this morning alone. It's clear what his aim is here and I've posted before about how he is desperate to give the impression that he is some sort of intellectual here, or at least intellectually superior to the other posters in this thread. Ironically, for someone who gives the impression that they are intelligent, it's amusing how he doesn't understand the light-hearted nature of a thread that's in the After Hours forum. It's best to just not engage with posters like that.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

So she's not dangerous but she is dangerous. Nice to see you're being clear.

The agenda she promotes is dangerous. She, as a person, isn't dangerous.

(I won't write it in a longer paragraph because you might miss it and get confused by the other words )

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You haven't dealt with substantive points at all. You're still pretending that a thread that has low activity but with ridiculous posts going unchallenged is the same as a thread that is active but the posts are challenged.

You're pretending that my aim is for the thread to disappear. However I recognise that won't happen and instead I contribute to challenge the silly posts.

As long as you continue to pretend the above then you haven't dealt with anything and I consider any post based on misrepresenting my position to be of low intelligence.

Now I get that people misunderstand each other on threads all the time and that in itself is fine. But this is at least the third time I've clarified the above so.......

Deal with what exactly? Surely the existence of any given thread shouldn't have to be justified at least not by its top poster.

What exactly is your purpose on this thread? You say your 'challenging' the consensus but we are still awaiting something resembling a valid counter argument instead of inane drivel

Owryan

Deleted User wrote: »

The agenda she promotes is dangerous. She, as a person, isn't dangerous.

(I won't write it in a longer paragraph because you might miss it and get confused by the other words )

No matter how you articulate it, that's how she/her supporters will see your post.

it's just like how she sees all men as rapists. The message gets lost when the blinkers are on and their view is the only one that matters.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The reaction of the public..and the vitriol on both sides..the people who refused to see the grey area..it was either one or the other..

It was the first time I sensed what could have been considered a sense of a culture where people were excusing what could have been considered rape..

I took too long writing that sentence, but do you get me?..

That's just bringing views that are already there to the surface, where they can be publicly challenged. I don't think discussion of rape culture adds to rape culture at all.