| I think this topic title should be renamed into "Peer Pressure" |
 Steam: Zeemanhuismerk |
| Elitism in entertainment is for people that want to be wrong all the time except for their own little box. Actually, elitism in general is quite retarded anyway. And really guys, really... It's quite vague but he does say "being smart/being stupid". So he is an elitist because he thinks he is superior because he is smarter than the group of people he finds stupid. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Elitism in entertainment is for people that want to be wrong all the time except for their own little box. Actually, elitism in general is quite retarded anyway. And really guys, really... It's quite vague but he does say "being smart/being stupid". So he is an elitist because he thinks he is superior because he is smarter than the group of people he finds stupid. I would have described the majority of his thoughts as egocentric more so than I would have said they are elitist. Obviously they can be both, as the bit about his perceived superiority is clearly elitist, but that wasn't really the stand out point from my perspective. "I do still wish people would just see things my way because often I'm astounded that they don't/can't" is a shining example of egocentrism for instance. |
| Being egocentric means you feel superior, so isn't he acting like an elitist? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| No, that would be the obvious fallacy here. According to your statement, and seemingly according to the OP, proving someone wrong in a certain subject must equate to an elitist feeling of superiority over that person. I assure you that it's entirely possible to have a level discussion with someone where neither you, nor the person sitting across from you, feels superior, regardless of who ends up proving their point. Also your definition is a little lacking, if not completely false, but that's easily remedied by dictionary.com which you can do at your own expense. If I were to give a relevant example by the way I would simply site this discussion we are currently having. Whether you go on to convince me that his actions were elitist, or you accept what I just said, I hold no superiority over you. We simply had a discussion and you agreed with me or I agreed with you. |
UmbryaJan 18, 2013 10:16 AM
| If someone was actually intelligent, working out how to not come across as arrogant (i.e. elitist) would be easy unless you were stubborn in your mindset as to how you should operate, in which case trying to not be arrogant is an exercise in futility. |
Not_Biased said: If being right when others are wrong or being smart when others are stupid makes me an elitist then so be it. This is where your post is flawed, OP. If you believe that being an elitist translates to the not so black and white world of right and wrong, then by that definition, it makes everyone an elitist. Everyone believes that they are right in an argument. Obviously, in an academic argument debating, for example which side won WWII, there is one right answer. But then we delve into the world of opinions, which, I assume is what you're referring to. There is no true black and white in this regard, and therefore there can be no true 'right' or 'wrong'. Not_Biased said: How does one avoid being a pretentious, elitist snob when your IQ is 30 or 40+ points higher than just about everyone around you? I find this part extremely hypocritical. You're asking us how you can stop being a pretentious snob, when you're flaunting the (most likely improbable) fact that your IQ is 30-40 points higher than the average. You want to know step one to stop acting like that? And having a high IQ does not necessarily translate to being superior academically and morally. The IQ score simply measures intelligence in the broadest sense, and does not account for other factors that ultimately makes up "intelligence". One can have a high IQ, and have no success academically, and likewise, someone with a low IQ can have success in the same area. |
baseball3bJan 18, 2013 10:32 AM
Not_Biased said: I've often pondered the sensibility of elitism. Wondered if it's a logical or good position to have or if it just makes you a dick. My actions and thought processes are the result of intentionally supressing the feeling because I've decided not to be said dick. But deep down, when I see the stupidity in such large groups of people I know in my heart that I do know what's best for them. Not everything in life is a shade of grey. Some things are black and white, right and wrong, smart and stupid. If being right when others are wrong or being smart when others are stupid makes me an elitist then so be it. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect]Well you're probably not smarter than them.[/url] and you certainly don't know what is best for them, because what is best for them is not necessarily what is best for you, what you think is best for you or what you think might be best for them. Being more intelligent than someone else does not give you a right to make them your bitch. Not_Biased said: My intentions aren't to make people feel stupid. I actually become uncomfortable when I feel I've done something to demean someone. Not so much on the internet because of the level of anonymity but IRL I actually feel like I've hurt someone's feelings when I prove them wrong. I do still wish people would just see things my way because often I'm astounded that they don't/can't. The first question you should be asking you is whether or not you attempt to see things there way. Not_Biased said: How does one avoid being a pretencious, elitist snob when your IQ is 30 or 40+ points higher than just about everyone around you? Aside from IQ not being important, your IQ does not make you pretentious, nor does it make you an elitist. Those things are determined by your behaviour and the way to avoid these labels is simple; don't be a dick. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
Legendre said: No, that would be the obvious fallacy here. According to your statement, and seemingly according to the OP, proving someone wrong in a certain subject must equate to an elitist feeling of superiority over that person. I assure you that it's entirely possible to have a level discussion with someone where neither you, nor the person sitting across from you, feels superior, regardless of who ends up proving their point. Also your definition is a little lacking, if not completely false, but that's easily remedied by dictionary.com which you can do at your own expense. If I were to give a relevant example by the way I would simply site this discussion we are currently having. Whether you go on to convince me that his actions were elitist, or you accept what I just said, I hold no superiority over you. We simply had a discussion and you agreed with me or I agreed with you. "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources." I feel superior because you have lost an argument against me, I am an elitist, I deserve to be venerated. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Legendre said: Did you create this topic to discuss elitism, or further your own agenda of convincing everyone that you are intelligent? I wonder if you are on to something. Ineptia said: A true elitist doesn't start threads; he just posts in them to criticize everyone. |
Immahnoob said: Legendre said: No, that would be the obvious fallacy here. According to your statement, and seemingly according to the OP, proving someone wrong in a certain subject must equate to an elitist feeling of superiority over that person. I assure you that it's entirely possible to have a level discussion with someone where neither you, nor the person sitting across from you, feels superior, regardless of who ends up proving their point. Also your definition is a little lacking, if not completely false, but that's easily remedied by dictionary.com which you can do at your own expense. If I were to give a relevant example by the way I would simply site this discussion we are currently having. Whether you go on to convince me that his actions were elitist, or you accept what I just said, I hold no superiority over you. We simply had a discussion and you agreed with me or I agreed with you. "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources." I feel superior because you have lost an argument against me, I am an elitist, I deserve to be venerated. LOL, figures you would decide to do that. Also, I meant the definition of egocentric, not elitist. Although I think you knew that. |
| OP just created this topic to brag about his IQ. 1) IQ =/= Intelligence or worth as a person 2) Ones elitism and snobbery does not increase in direct proportion to ones IQ. 3) You do not know what is best for people, and it is not your place to tell them it. Do I find people who basically pretend to be Japanese extremely annoying? Yes, and I make a habit not to talk to them; but do I tell them to their faces that they are worthless that they are inferior? Of course not, it's not my place to say that. It'd be a horrible thing to say, and that's just an example; just because you have a higher IQ than someone it doesn't give you the right to be snobbish or an asshole to others. Not only because it's out of people's control what their IQ is, but also because it isn't a good judge of a person's character, how much they will succeed in life, or your standing in relation to them. 4) A person's worth, in my opinion, should be judged on how they interact with people around them. Are they kind, generous, virtuous people? Or do they see themselves as better than them, belittle them, insult them? This is independent of intelligence. tldr; don't be a dick oh and most of what you've been talking about isn't elitism, it's arrogance, an extremely negative trait to have. |
forfrosneJan 18, 2013 12:42 PM
Legendre said: Immahnoob said: Legendre said: No, that would be the obvious fallacy here. According to your statement, and seemingly according to the OP, proving someone wrong in a certain subject must equate to an elitist feeling of superiority over that person. I assure you that it's entirely possible to have a level discussion with someone where neither you, nor the person sitting across from you, feels superior, regardless of who ends up proving their point. Also your definition is a little lacking, if not completely false, but that's easily remedied by dictionary.com which you can do at your own expense. If I were to give a relevant example by the way I would simply site this discussion we are currently having. Whether you go on to convince me that his actions were elitist, or you accept what I just said, I hold no superiority over you. We simply had a discussion and you agreed with me or I agreed with you. "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources." I feel superior because you have lost an argument against me, I am an elitist, I deserve to be venerated. LOL, figures you would decide to do that. Also, I meant the definition of egocentric, not elitist. Although I think you knew that. Uhm... What? I said that being egocentric can also mean being an elitist in some cases. "I am the best at debating, you all suck, I FEEL SUPERIOR!" |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Being egocentric means you feel superior There's your initial definition, andddd no, I was actually the one that suggested that egocentric can mean elitist in some cases: Legendre said: Immahnoob said: Elitism in entertainment is for people that want to be wrong all the time except for their own little box. Actually, elitism in general is quite retarded anyway. And really guys, really... It's quite vague but he does say "being smart/being stupid". So he is an elitist because he thinks he is superior because he is smarter than the group of people he finds stupid. I would have described the majority of his thoughts as egocentric more so than I would have said they are elitist. Obviously they can be both, as the bit about his perceived superiority is clearly elitist, but that wasn't really the stand out point from my perspective. "I do still wish people would just see things my way because often I'm astounded that they don't/can't" is a shining example of egocentrism for instance. @Monad: Given that he still hasn't posted in this thread yet after the initial OP. I would assume I was. |
| Egocentric means you care only about yourself... It's obvious you'll feel superior to others. Why would I need to post obvious shit all the time? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Maybe you should just refer to Anno's post instead: "The first question you should be asking yourself is whether or not you attempt to see things their way." If that doesn't do it for you, then: Egocentric people believe that those who have a different perception than their own are either considered false or nonexistent. I already gave a lengthy explanation as to why a sense of superiority is not always, and does not have to be, prevalent when considering someones opinions false. At least you're right in that it should be obvious. |
| So, in math, when asked to find the distance between two points (limited to a 2-D plane only :P) I usually draw a straight line. I've found that we can prove our superiority by drawing straight lines. And then, I can become an egocentric man of character. Though I do feel as unbending as I am when I keep to my ethical nature, everyone else seems to have walked the road faster than I ever could. Just another egocentric with an inferiority complex. |
| What I wish for is not to appear right, but for both of us to learn something new. Is it so wrong to pursue the truth? |
Legendre said: Maybe you should just refer to Anno's post instead: "The first question you should be asking yourself is whether or not you attempt to see things their way." If that doesn't do it for you, then: Egocentric people believe that those who have a different perception than their own are either considered false or nonexistent. I already gave a lengthy explanation as to why a sense of superiority is not always, and does not have to be, prevalent when considering someones opinions false. At least you're right in that it should be obvious. superior adjective higher in station, rank, degree, importance, etc.: a superior officer. You're superior if everybody else is wrong, but that's just how YOU FEEL. Thus, you are elitist. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Legendre said: Maybe you should just refer to Anno's post instead: "The first question you should be asking yourself is whether or not you attempt to see things their way." If that doesn't do it for you, then: Egocentric people believe that those who have a different perception than their own are either considered false or nonexistent. I already gave a lengthy explanation as to why a sense of superiority is not always, and does not have to be, prevalent when considering someones opinions false. At least you're right in that it should be obvious. superior adjective higher in station, rank, degree, importance, etc.: a superior officer. You're superior if everybody else is wrong, but that's just how YOU FEEL. Thus, you are elitist. You're trying to quantify something that by nature should be perceived. In the context of a discussion, if you don't perceive it, it isn't there. Elitism is a perceived superiority. You can be right, without having a sense of superiority, can you not? Whether you're actually superior or not is irrelevant. What matters is that you think you're not; and if you think you're not, then you're not an elitist. By your definition everyone who wins an argument is thus an elitist. |
| "But that's just how YOU FEEL." "What matters is that you think you're not; and if you think you're not, then you're not an elitist." HUEHUEHUE. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| The difference is in the conclusion unfortunately. |
Legendre said: The difference is in the conclusion unfortunately. One says you are, the other says you aren't, wait, I'll state the obvious again Legendre. It works both ways. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Legendre said: The difference is in the conclusion unfortunately. One says you are, the other says you aren't, wait, I'll state the obvious again Legendre. It works both ways. Considering the discussion was to answer the question "how does one avoid being a pretencious, elitist snob when your IQ is 30 or 40+ points higher than just about everyone around you?" the fact that it works both ways was irrelevant. What mattered was trying to convince him that you could go about a discussion and NOT be elitist, even if you were right. |
| I thinking being superior is relevant. That's why we're talking about it now right now. Being an elitist is more a feeling superior kinda thing usually in a general sense. Like higher social standing which might mean more money and doing things that are "more refined" by having money that others do not. Being an elitist is mostly a perceived viewpoint by having more, or feeling superior by being "ahead of the pack" in whatever subject. As for me, I will always be ELeeT. :P |
| What I wish for is not to appear right, but for both of us to learn something new. Is it so wrong to pursue the truth? |
| i don't see a correlation between being intelligent and being elite in the first place. as far as i'm concerned, being ignorant would be much more satisfying than intelligent in every which way it can be painted. at the same time, higher IQ doesn't equate to higher intelligence. so i think the basis of your discussion is a bit shifty. elitism and superiority-complex' is much more of mental situating than any true "standing", and a lot of the time i think that attitude is to compensate for personal insecurities. in any case, there's almost no such thing as an elite anime fan. |
Legendre said: Immahnoob said: Legendre said: The difference is in the conclusion unfortunately. One says you are, the other says you aren't, wait, I'll state the obvious again Legendre. It works both ways. Considering the discussion was to answer the question "how does one avoid being a pretencious, elitist snob when your IQ is 30 or 40+ points higher than just about everyone around you?" the fact that it works both ways was irrelevant. What mattered was trying to convince him that you could go about a discussion and NOT be elitist, even if you were right. Oh, that's what you wanted to say... I won't bother with that, Not_Biased and his best friend Irony_Embrace have too much of a bond for me to break. Their shackles that bind them cannot be broken. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Superiority combined with human nature makes it damn difficult if not impossible to not be elitist to some extent. I wish you luck in your endeavors. I found it helps to just be really ignorant in a few subjects to share the love across all boards. I may be way better at you than everything, but fuck man. You are right, I don't know how to make that shade of purple. Or something along that nature. |
 |
Bloodcalibur said: katsucats said: He took the time to take screenshots of my posts to spam them and he's calling me obsessed? Hah! Funny thing is that me admitting when I'm wrong proves the post he's spamming. *sigh* They need to do something about the education these days. When Indian call centers understand English better than people who grew up in New York, we've got a major problem. http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t294/FLoWControL/22451786_zps6bec3faa.jpg Notice his Photobucket account? Proves the OKCupid profile is his. Bloodcalibur said: Well at least you didn't deny being wrong about elitism. katsucats said: In the post, you admit to attempting to talk about things you lack knowledge on and admit to trying to ease out of arguments when you started realizing you might be wrong. According to your other post though, that's being a gamma :).! Funny thing is that me admitting when I'm wrong proves the post he's spamming. Here's my post: katsucats said: I'm not having that epiphany yet. Just because I say X sometimes lead to Y doesn't mean X always lead to Y, which shows your miniscule capacity to comprehend abstract logic. At least I admit my faults, I admit when I'm wrong, which is 3 times in the dozens of arguments that we got into.TemetNosce said: Yes. I don't start out doing it, but once in awhile half-way into an argument I'll have an epiphany and realize maybe this guy's onto something, and I'm not as sure as I thought it was. Usually, I'd slowly ease out of the argument after this, or admit I'm wrong if the other guy isn't a complete jackass.Do any of you ever find yourselves trying to convince others or yourself that you know something when in actuality you don't? By the way, I know this will get brought up so just so no one gets their hopes up: No Bloodcalibur, I'm not talking about you. You can't even admit you're wrong after you posted a definition of "elitism" that conforms to my argument. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. Because you suck at English, let's clarify this: "intellect, social status, or financial resources" refer to favored treatment, not perceived superiority. The superiority is perceived to be categorically superior, not superior in X. For example, elitists don't merely perceive themselves to be superior in lineage or financial resources, they perceive that whatever properties that define their superiority makes them superior en toto. Why do I have to waste my time giving this clown English lesssons? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
nqthing said: i don't see a correlation between being intelligent and being elite in the first place. as far as i'm concerned, being ignorant would be much more satisfying than intelligent in every which way it can be painted. at the same time, higher IQ doesn't equate to higher intelligence. so i think the basis of your discussion is a bit shifty. elitism and superiority-complex' is much more of mental situating than any true "standing", and a lot of the time i think that attitude is to compensate for personal insecurities. in any case, there's almost no such thing as an elite anime fan. Elite anime fan. I would say that too. But, going up to the group of bandanna wearing, uniform-love coat wearing, and fan waving group of people and saying "You're not elite anime fan. I don't believe you like this anime more than the rest of us." I believe you'll find my body hanging from a construction crane. :O As for being generally ignorant and knowledgeable on some areas or not, it seems our efforts to share and distribute the knowledge is turning our community into some sort of strange socialist kind of array. The people's party forever. Strengthening everyone at the same time. Huzzah* Huzzah* |
| What I wish for is not to appear right, but for both of us to learn something new. Is it so wrong to pursue the truth? |
katsucats said: My reasoning referring to you being a gamma based on the premise you yourself created had nothing to do with X always leading to Y.Here's my post: katsucats said: I'm not having that epiphany yet. Just because I say X sometimes lead to Y doesn't mean X always lead to Y, TemetNosce said: Yes. I don't start out doing it, but once in awhile half-way into an argument I'll have an epiphany and realize maybe this guy's onto something, and I'm not as sure as I thought it was. Usually, I'd slowly ease out of the argument after this, or admit I'm wrong if the other guy isn't a complete jackass.Do any of you ever find yourselves trying to convince others or yourself that you know something when in actuality you don't? By the way, I know this will get brought up so just so no one gets their hopes up: No Bloodcalibur, I'm not talking about you. Logic fail. katsucats said: You can't even admit you're wrong after you posted a definition of "elitism" that conforms to my argument. Comprehension fail. You misinterpreted OP's points with his usage of his feeling of being an elitist based on his condition-based perception of superiority. You then go on to create an argument under that premise. Neither of us got the definition wrong as that was not what we were actually even disagreeing about (again a comprehension fail on your part). You were arguing by gripping on straws to begin with and now you're trying to wiggle you way out (for the ~4th debate in a row now). katsucats said: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. Because you suck at English, let's clarify this: "intellect, social status, or financial resources" refer to favored treatment, not perceived superiority. The superiority is perceived to be categorically superior, not superior in X. For example, elitists don't merely perceive themselves to be superior in lineage or financial resources, they perceive that whatever properties that define their superiority makes them superior en toto. ..Are you serious right now? Lol. You can't be this dumb, tell me, please tell me it isn't so. Here let me point it out for you and expose you (yet again): You're taking what I'm actually arguing about concerning the definition of elitism and using it as if it were your own and that I'm somehow arguing what I've been defending this entire time. Read your own last line: "they perceive that whatever properties that define their superiority makes them superior". And then read our original argument on page 2. If you still can't see where you had [yet another] comprehension fail, then I have no idea how to help you. Ignorance is bliss I guess? On the other hand, if you do figure it out, please let it be [further] evidence of the intellectual gap you have below me. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos"    Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Bloodcalibur said: katsucats said: My reasoning referring to you being a gamma based on the premise you yourself created had nothing to do with X always leading to Y.Here's my post: katsucats said: I'm not having that epiphany yet. Just because I say X sometimes lead to Y doesn't mean X always lead to Y, TemetNosce said: Yes. I don't start out doing it, but once in awhile half-way into an argument I'll have an epiphany and realize maybe this guy's onto something, and I'm not as sure as I thought it was. Usually, I'd slowly ease out of the argument after this, or admit I'm wrong if the other guy isn't a complete jackass.Do any of you ever find yourselves trying to convince others or yourself that you know something when in actuality you don't? By the way, I know this will get brought up so just so no one gets their hopes up: No Bloodcalibur, I'm not talking about you. Logic fail. katsucats said: You can't even admit you're wrong after you posted a definition of "elitism" that conforms to my argument. Comprehension fail. You misinterpreted OP's points with his usage of his feeling of being an elitist based on his condition-based perception of superiority. You then go on to create an argument under that premise. Neither of us got the definition wrong as that was not what we were actually even disagreeing about (again a comprehension fail on your part). You were arguing by gripping on straws to begin with and now you're trying to wiggle you way out (for the ~4th debate in a row now). katsucats said: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. Because you suck at English, let's clarify this: "intellect, social status, or financial resources" refer to favored treatment, not perceived superiority. The superiority is perceived to be categorically superior, not superior in X. For example, elitists don't merely perceive themselves to be superior in lineage or financial resources, they perceive that whatever properties that define their superiority makes them superior en toto. ..Are you serious right now? Lol. You can't be this dumb, tell me, please tell me it isn't so. Here let me point it out for you and expose you (yet again): You're taking what I'm actually arguing about concerning the definition of elitism and using it as if it were your own and that I'm somehow arguing what I've been defending this entire time. Read your own last line: "they perceive that whatever properties that define their superiority makes them superior". And then read our original argument on page 2. If you still can't see where you had [yet another] comprehension fail, then I have no idea how to help you. Ignorance is bliss I guess? On the other hand, if you do figure it out, please let it be [further] evidence of the intellectual gap you have below me. I think you two are in-love. |
| Well, it's like they say... You can't teach a stupid dog new tricks, so rather than putting good time after bad, |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Well, it's like they say... You can't teach a stupid dog new tricks, so rather than putting good time after bad, The irony. *snicker* |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Bloodcalibur said: I already said that I mis-worded that post, so you can keep re-claiming that minor victory in your mind. Fact is the definitions speaks for categorical superiority -- that's the definition of elitism. God damn I make more progress with TheAutocrat than you. I'd rather teach calculus to a kid with down syndrome. This is getting so ridiculous.You're taking what I'm actually arguing about concerning the definition of elitism and using it as if it were your own and that I'm somehow arguing what I've been defending this entire time. Read your own last line: "they perceive that whatever properties that define their superiority makes them superior". And then read our original argument on page 2. Look dude: Rock your OKCupid profile, troll people, whatever, just get off my nuts. For real. I'm done with you. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Stop. I will not allow divorces before you even marry. Plus you both haven't paid the fees for both yet. :O |
| What I wish for is not to appear right, but for both of us to learn something new. Is it so wrong to pursue the truth? |
| I don't really care if you guys get banned or not, but it is quite surprising that you both haven't. I feel like I've been banned multiple times for a lot less, haha. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| you're both wrong and i'm superior |
Post-Josh said: +1I don't really care if you guys get banned or not, but it is quite surprising that you both haven't. I feel like I've been banned multiple times for a lot less, haha. I'm surprised too. I don't even know what I was banned for last time, but it's gotta be a lot less than this. Then again, this guy's been spamming the same post, and some mod comes in to say "Fixed, changed picture to fit width of site" or something. lol |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: already said that I mis-worded that post Katsucats was wrong about something, now tell me something new. katsucats said: Fact is the definitions speaks for categorical superiority -- that's the definition of elitism. I argued categorical superiority from the beginning. This is what I've been pointing out to you as one of many pieces of evidence that you have comprehension issues. You also seem to have trouble keeping track of what is being argued about. The next problem in this argument lies in the fact that you misinterpreted the OP's point, a point that my original point heavily relies on, which you somehow argued. Thus, this is starting to look more like another case of what you admitted to here: katsucats said: get off my nuts This is ironic coming from the guy who is so bothered from losing several debates against me that he started mentioning me in every discussion he was involved in, even ones I never took part in, stalked my girlfriend's profiles, photoshops my pics, and parodies my avatar =d. gigglingidiot pretty much summarizes it: gigglingidiot said: How did the "sexy" vs. "cute" controversy turn into someone making a fake OKCupid account using someone else's identity? That's crossing the line of being a weirdo. In your case, it might be "No homo" but "Yes pathetic." |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
katsucats said: Post-Josh said: +1I don't really care if you guys get banned or not, but it is quite surprising that you both haven't. I feel like I've been banned multiple times for a lot less, haha. I'm surprised too. I don't even know what I was banned for last time, but it's gotta be a lot less than this. Then again, this guy's been spamming the same post, and some mod comes in to say "Fixed, changed picture to fit width of site" or something. lol LOL, my picture was too big. Wasn't paying too much attention when I was messing with the image. So I just gave up in the end. Everything is different. All that matters is that you pay attention. But then again, attention doesn't come sent in packets :C. Mines are turned on all the time, giving me some painful headaches. |
| What I wish for is not to appear right, but for both of us to learn something new. Is it so wrong to pursue the truth? |
| Bloodcalibur, why must you post the same reply from another thread several times? Makes no sense, we can all lie on the Internet or act as sophists. And katsucats, why must you be the one that "does it"? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Does what? I don't understand your question.And katsucats, why must you be the one that "does it"? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Immahnoob said: Does what? I don't understand your question.And katsucats, why must you be the one that "does it"? What if I say... You're trying too hard...? Will you get it? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: No.katsucats said: Immahnoob said: Does what? I don't understand your question.And katsucats, why must you be the one that "does it"? What if I say... You're trying too hard...? Will you get it? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Immahnoob said: No.katsucats said: Immahnoob said: Does what? I don't understand your question.And katsucats, why must you be the one that "does it"? What if I say... You're trying too hard...? Will you get it? Then I won't explain further, Patrick. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Uhh ok... maximum over-rustle...katsucats said: Immahnoob said: No.katsucats said: Immahnoob said: Does what? I don't understand your question.And katsucats, why must you be the one that "does it"? What if I say... You're trying too hard...? Will you get it? Then I won't explain further, Patrick. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Who would've thought that a thread on elitism would get so hostile? |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
Immahnoob said: katsucats said: Immahnoob said: No.katsucats said: Immahnoob said: Does what? I don't understand your question.And katsucats, why must you be the one that "does it"? What if I say... You're trying too hard...? Will you get it? Then I won't explain further, Patrick. You know shit just got serious when Immahnoob is the one telling you you're trying too hard. That's the guy who went on a crusade trying to defend the claim that penis size didn't matter. Ouch. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Bloodcalibur said: Immahnoob said: katsucats said: Immahnoob said: No.katsucats said: Immahnoob said: Does what? I don't understand your question.And katsucats, why must you be the one that "does it"? What if I say... You're trying too hard...? Will you get it? Then I won't explain further, Patrick. You know shit just got serious when Immahnoob is the one telling you you're trying too hard. That's the guy who went on a crusade trying to defend the claim that penis size didn't matter. Ouch. It really doesn't matter. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
More topics from this board
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - Apr 19 |
43 |
by LordSozin
»»
39 minutes ago |
|
» Do you enjoy nature?Kamikaze_404 - Apr 23 |
31 |
by Kushna
»»
46 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Worst social mediaIpreferEcchi - Mar 19 |
28 |
by hypergoob
»»
52 minutes ago |
|
» What are some of your favorite animals?DoisacChopper - Feb 10 |
44 |
by Kiryotsu
»»
2 hours ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Yesterday |
20 |
by blueblur
»»
3 hours ago |