The Terrible Sweal

[I Miss Trudeau]

Certainly seems over the top as I read it. Which is a shame.

Yeah, that is pretty intense. That said, I hope the poster that continously accuses posters of supporting the holocaust gets a good boot to the teeth, too.

[Riverwind]

Certainly seems over the top as I read it. Which is a shame.

Yeah, that is pretty intense. That said, I hope the poster that continously accuses posters of supporting the holocaust gets a good boot to the teeth, too.

Whenever I get a reply from the same poster it is full of belittling insults and attacks even if none of it uses derogatory language. It seems like this poster deliberately attempts to provoke people as a way to make a point. That said, everyone has a choice to not be provoked.

[August1991]

If you skip through that thread - linked above - you'll see my comment telling both of them to "knock it off". Hugo, in response, then accused me of trying to become a moderator - or usurping this forum.

Lesson? No provocation, however absurd or outrageous, justifies the language Sweal used in response. Be polite in the face of nonsense.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk, (Pandion Knight?)

Whenever I get a reply from the same poster it is full of belittling insults and attacks even if none of it uses derogatory language. It seems like this poster deliberately attempts to provoke people as a way to make a point. That said, everyone has a choice to not be provoked.

I have had many lengthy debated with 'the above mentioned poster', and I was also 'accused' of being a defacto 'holocaust supporter'. I sympathize with Sweal at his outrage, yet it didn't bother me so much, because I knew that the accusation was wrong, and further, I don't really care what anyone thinks of me. Nor did I resort to obscenities, but I will admit to some sarcastic remarks, which were self-gratifying, but not really applicable to the debate.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I was also 'accused' of being a defacto 'holocaust supporter'.

So I suppose the real question is why this poster is still permitted to make such attacks on others.

Lesson? No provocation, however absurd or outrageous, justifies the language Sweal used in response. Be polite in the face of nonsense.

I'm not trying to defend the language. That said, if you translate Sweal's post into a non-profanity laden version with the same meaning, it constitutes a far less serious attack than the "holocaust supporter" accusation that constantly gets thrown around with this poster. That is worthy of note.

[Greg]

I'm not trying to defend the language. That said, if you translate Sweal's post into a non-profanity laden version with the same meaning, it constitutes a far less serious attack than the "holocaust supporter" accusation that constantly gets thrown around with this poster. That is worthy of note.

Hugo has been warned about the use of this phrase.

Greg

Admin

[Argus]

I'm not trying to defend the language. That said, if you translate Sweal's post into a non-profanity laden version with the same meaning, it constitutes a far less serious attack than the "holocaust supporter" accusation that constantly gets thrown around with this poster. That is worthy of note.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I read the entire thread. I didn't take Hugo's statement about "apologising for the Holocaust" as an accusation of Nazi sympathies on the part of Sweal. I'm not entirely sure, but it seemed to me he was trying to make a point about government actions being illegitimate regardless of whether they were elected or not. I'm guessing the "I'm going to make you apologise for the Holocaust" referred to a previous discussion between the two along those lines.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

I didn't take Hugo's statement about "apologising for the Holocaust" as an accusation of Nazi sympathies on the part of Sweal. I'm not entirely sure, but it seemed to me he was trying to make a point about government actions being illegitimate regardless of whether they were elected or not.

I got the same feeling, but felt the reference was a bit inappropriate. I realize what Hugo was trying to say, but I personally felt that Hugo was merely baiting Sweal with

I'm guessing the "I'm going to make you apologise for the Holocaust" referred to a previous discussion between the two along those lines

as he knew it stuck a chord with Sweal and yet he continued to use it. I believe Hugo to be in the wrong, this time, however, for he mixed 'morals' and 'pragmatic fact' at his convenience, in this particular thread. He could have easily switched references to some other example, such as Stalinist Russia, or many others, or simply said 'you don't disagree with the actions of gov't even when they must inevitably lead to state-sanctioned murder' or some such.

Regardless, Sweal blew his top, and Greg must take steps to keep stuff like that in check. What those steps may be, is solely up to a moderator. I realize he also warned Hugo, and if he persists in 'inappropriate conduct', he also faces censure.

[kimmy]

I don't wish to complain about the ban. Especially if The Sweal received repeated warnings over this. I have sworn in this forum myself at least a few times, though I don't think I've ever directed it at another user. I do think that this forum is a cut above other internet forums I have participated in. One reason for that is that the administration does generally a good job, I think. But another reason is that the users here are generally very intelligent and well-spoken... and Sweal was one of the best.

I just wanted to mention that I will miss The Sweal a lot. Even though he and I almost never agreed on anything, I did enjoy his contributions to the forum. Even if we had our disagreements, I felt that they were generally civil and I think worthwhile.

Given the choice between an intelligent and prolific contributor prone to fits of temper, or a borderline-retarded asshat who doesn't swear but has nothing to offer anybody over the age of 6 years old, my personal preference would be the former. Yet, sadly, The Sweal is gone, but YOUKNOWWHO remains.

-kimmy

[I Miss Trudeau]

Given the choice between an intelligent and prolific contributor prone to fits of temper, or a borderline-retarded asshat who doesn't swear but has nothing to offer anybody over the age of 6 years old, my personal preference would be the former.

I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to call other posters "Asshats."

[Argus]

Given the choice between an intelligent and prolific contributor prone to fits of temper, or a borderline-retarded asshat who doesn't swear but has nothing to offer anybody over the age of 6 years old, my personal preference would be the former.

I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to call other posters "Asshats."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but who's to take offence and admit they're the borderline-retarded asshat?

I mean, YOUKNOWHO could be a number of posters here.

[Guest eureka]

Edmund Burke called the people "The Swinish Multitude." If someone were to say that Conservatives are a significant part of the "swinish multitude", would that be over the line?

Aneurin Bevan said that "Conservatives ar lower than vermin." If someone were to say that he concurred with Bevin, would that be over the line?

If attributed, probably not: but if not attributed, what then?

[kimmy]

Edmund Burke called the people "The Swinish Multitude." If someone were to say that Conservatives are a significant part of the "swinish multitude", would that be over the line?

Aneurin Bevan said that "Conservatives ar lower than vermin." If someone were to say that he concurred with Bevin, would that be over the line?

If attributed, probably not: but if not attributed, what then?

What would either of those comments contribute to anything? Properly attributed or not, I can't envision a discussion to which either of those comments would be constructive.

-k

[Guest eureka]

I can!

[I Miss Trudeau]

I mean, YOUKNOWHO could be a number of posters here.

Indeed.

[Hugo]

Since people here are talking about me I'll take a moment to defend myself.

This is what I posed to Thelonius:

Your theory would seem to dictate that whether a killing was murder or euthanasia depends upon the opinion of the euthaniser. Again, wouldn't this make the Holocaust into eleven million mercy killings, since the Nazis get to decide whether it's murder or not? They would argue that it wasn't murder because what they were killing wasn't human.

I don't see how that is accusatory or offensive. I took what I understood to be his theories and tied them into an actual crime that he would find reprehensible but which his theories would justify. I wanted to hear his explanation.

This is what I posed to Sweal:

If this affects the creation of rights, then what you are telling me is that there are no ethics, and no morals, and human action is solely limited to what is possible - there is no right or wrong, and the Holocaust, the Purges and the Cultural Revolution are all acceptable to you, because there exist no rights independent of the willingness of others to respect them or the ability of the right-holders to defend them.

and

I am drawing a distinction between initiation of force and force used in response to the initiation of force. You, apparently, are not. From what I can gather, you are telling me that the Warsaw ghetto uprising was ethically equivalent to the Holocaust, whereas I would say that the uprising was not wrong, because it did not initiate force, whereas the Holocaust was wrong, because it did.

Again, I don't find either of those to be accusatory or offensive. I'm summarising what my partner in debate has said thus far and attempting to extrapolate it into an historical example. Initially, I asked for clarification, used phrases such as "from what I can gather" or "wouldn't this make", which are questioning phrases rather than statements, and thus my original point was not "You are a Holocaust-apologist" but "doesn't this make you a Holocaust-apologist?", and I took pains to make it clear that I expected the other party to defend himself against them - which should be indicative that the accusation was not serious but a rhetorical tool which I was using to make a point.

I grew frustrated at the original poster's constant failure to justify or explain himself and to answer my questions. Having failed to civilly solicit a response I resorted to trying to bait one out of him. If you read the threads in question you can quite clearly see the back-and-forth between us where I repeatedly tried to pin him down to an actual answer, and failed.

If you will, I made a point and asked the other party to attack it. Since he repeatedly failed to do so I think it was not unreasonable for me to have decided that he must support it. It's a sad fact that some people consider certain topics to be taboo and never to be discussed, but I believe we can never take that attitude because it can mask truth. All topics should be open for discussion, even if painful.

Greg has indeed warned me about the use of the phrase, however, since Sweal has now gone I doubt I will need it again - he was one of the most obfuscatory and evasive of the posters on this forum and I generally don't need to go to such extremes just to try and get a response out of anybody else.

If some people find my posts scathing, it's nothing personal, just the way I write.

[I Miss Trudeau]

You conveniently forgot this one, Hugo:

You watch, Sweal, I'm going to make you apologize for the Holocaust, again. This'll get you goose-stepping mad:

Kind of a different tone than the ones you offered up, wouldn't you say?

[Hugo]

I think Sweal's plentiful evasion and blasts of insults and foul language earned him that one.

[PocketRocket]

But then again, perhaps these "evasions" were simply attempts to not get baited, which seems to be one of your games, and which you have, by your own admission, used against SWEAL.

Another is taking a valid argument, and twisting it by applying some ridiculous-sounding analogy in a vain attempt to belittle your opponents, or simply anger them by trying to put words into their mouths.

Some come here to discuss matters in a quest for reason and/or truth.

Others come here to debate to test their verbal mettle and political knowledge against a variety of opponents.

And some come here to puff up their own sad little egos with "victories" over their opponents, so they can feel good about how they have "beaten" someone in a faceless war of words.

And yet another type is the intellectual bully, who, through a strong command of the language, a good general knowledge of history and current events, and the ability to twist words, seeks to push others around verbally, regardless of whether or not there is any merit to what they are saying.

Which of these do you consider yourself to be, HUGO???

[Hugo]

If your arguments are weak and self-contradictory then it will certainly seem that way.

[Cartman]

I, for one, enjoy Hugo's posts. I also really enjoyed the debates between Sweal and Hugo. They would often get quite heated, but they were some of the best debates on this forum IMO. I learned quite a bit from these exchanges.

The reason I started this thread is because Sweal could keep posting for weeks on a topic without relent, but this particular subject set him off. I realize he was getting rather "bold" before his ban, but I suspect that there is more to this story than meets the eye. That is, I would not be surprised if someone close to him had suffered during these horrific events.

I just wish he had removed the offensive posts, apologized and got back to productive debating.

[Edited to add that since Sweal cannot refute things we are saying, I suppose now would be a good time to end the thread given that Greg sounds firm in his decision]

[PocketRocket]

If your arguments are weak and self-contradictory then it will certainly seem that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In your own words, "that is not an answer".

You have justified your "scathing" style as being "Nothing personal, that's just the way I write".

The beauty of an internet forum is that you can review your posts before hitting the "add reply" button.

It not at all like saying "that's just the way I speak", wherein you cannot take back your words once they have left your mouth.

ANYTHING can be said at any time, if it is said with the right words.

You are obviously VERY intelligent, HUGO, with a great command of the english language, and so could easily make your point in a fashion that would be less provocative.

But you CHOOSE not to.

Why you, or anyone else, make such a choice is a mystery to me.

Provoking someone you are debating with simply polarizes the argument further and makes it MORE difficult to reach any sort of accord.

Often, there will be no agreement between two parties, but debating WITHOUT such provocation often leads to agreements on other topics later.

Hell, it can even lead to friendship.

But belittling opponents in debate says more about oneself than it does about the victim of the diatribe.

[Greg]

I suppose now would be a good time to end the thread given that Greg sounds firm in his decision

Agreed. Everyone has blow off some steam, now we can get back to some reasoned debate.

Cheers,

Greg