ZethaPonderer

Well it is made strictly for female children from ages 1-5 in mind. So it’s not that interesting.

Also, IMO this generation 3 MLP was not written by people, but by aliens (mostly grey) masquerading as people to mind control unsuspecting female toddler children to do their bidding because the whole show looks horrifying. Have you seen the ponies of Gen 3 and 3.5? I have seen some clips of both of these shows because I hate myself so much. They look as if they went on a diet so hard they’re suffering from malnutrition. Also, the eyes. They are fitting for being horrifyingly soul-staring.

The whole thing seems like an experiment gone horribly wrong.

I get a strong feeling people will voice clip lyrics out of Rick Astley from his Rick Roll Song and post that as their real voice.  Rick Rolling on a different level.

14 minutes ago, Jeric said:

Not to further that thought spiral, but 

That insightful video basically illustrates why I personally wade carefully in internet debate. It also explains why I do not engage someone over more than four posts if I am trying to instill a seed of doubt in someone’s mind. 

Of course, most of the times I do post in Debate when I am in a friendly mood, it’s not to prove someone wrong, or to change a mind. Sometimes I just like having a conversation regarding life and politics. A conversation for conversations sake is not a bad motivation. 

Ok I did some mental recovery techniques to get my sanity under control for the time being. I see. Well I wasn't intending to come across as someone who wanted to change their minds, but more so elaborate my points again for why they are deeming it irrelevant to the discussion exactly because I don't really understand where they're coming from. I'm not the kind of person that would want to change people's way of thinking. That's not who I am and not what I want to be. What I take issue with is, If they don't want to come across 'tolerant' with my posts and willing to take offense to shit all over my posts then that's A.O.K when Debating in general? Interesting. Never thought of it that way before. Though I don't agree with the line of reasoning they're going with I did acknowledge some of their points within the post that was meaningful for me to understand where they're coming from. Was it not good enough for them? Then it stops being a Debate as a form of Discussion anymore and more of a Debate as a form of Rhetoric at that point.

12 minutes ago, TBD said:

Basically If you can’t take the heat then beat it. I used to think as you but as time progresses I learn it’s not the people problems, it’s my own arrogant in not allowing myself to be open minded to different view and experiences. You can’t expect people to see eye to eye or stand the same level as you. If everyone were to speak the same as you hell the world be boring and mindless.  If one wish to shout out because they feel what’s wrong hear them out. Respect comes in both ways. What I learn is what makes a bad debater is arrogance.

When I say *you I don’t mean just you. I’m saying to those who would think the same. I have to admit I never have any problem with the people here at the debate in mlpf. Of all my experiences in a internet debate, people here are respectful and have contributed valid points enough for me to be more open minded and be more tolerant around people with different views as me. I don’t have to agree to them but it was sure a food for a thought.   

Well I will and did admit at one point in making my post in my past Debates that I do come across as an arrogant piece of shit. But, I hate that self within me so much so that I'm desperately meditating beyond my limits (physical, mental, spiritual, and psychological) trying to conquer my arrogance to the point where I am nothing. I will not deny that I might be blind on one eye while I can see fine on the other. But, I make sure I do my best to understand their points. Guess I have a long way to go to fully eradicate the arrogance within me 100% and obtain the other eye. Cause all Human Beings possess arrogance. I did learn a lot from my opposers though I will admit that.

38 minutes ago, Jeric said:

I’m honestly not going to get into the argument of subjective moderation of what constitutes being abusive. You can’t possibly itemize everything under the sun, and the more comprehensive you try to be, the more the assumptions exist that the absence of an example  makes it acceptable. I’ve been personally called homophobic and anti-religion on the same day and related to the same moderation situation and topic. That isn’t completely uncommon because it is natural to assume those in power are acting against you when a topic is shuttered, even if that isn’t the case. But that shows you how you can’t make things bias proof and objective. Honestly we need some passion in these topics. 

 

 

Maybe a longer discussion of my general musings about debate and moderation in there will at least allow some clarity of a very very hard to clarify subject. 

I want civil discussion, but I personally have nothing against cleverly applied snarky comments about a political idea or view point. Saying a view point is absurd may get some of the staff bristling, but I’m likely to undo anything that comes from that if there isn’t a direct insult to the person. While I have stated publicly that I hate how the term SJW an fascist are too casually used, I’m not going to shut down a discussion surrounding these two words. There are generally words that shouldn’t be used, obviously. I’d honestly stay clear of charged words like fag, retard, and the like. 

That said, two things I want to make clear because these issues have been reported and staff won’t act on them. Calling a public official a derogatory word isn’t going to be acted on. While I would prefer that points be made without that, that tends fall into the pick and choose your battles type of situation. I’d rather hide a user calling another user an insult than a user venting about an elected official. People don’t like the President and people do not like Ocasio-Cortez. I get it. They aren’t users here so I don’t feel any Administrative duty to protect their honor and reputation. 

As far as passive aggressive, man that is hard to effectively moderate. Like I said, I tend to allow some leeway. I don’t want to send a chilling effect on people who put some of their personality into their posts. Are there moments that people can cross the line? Of course, but it’s like that SCOTUS Justice that said “I know it when I see it” when he was referring to porn. You can usually tell when a debate is becoming toxic. 

Similar that is the obsession with some users on one subject. Careful observation over the years will tell you that staff will grow weary of one user making topics that amount to a singular idea if that idea is predicated on a group. We have had to remove users who constantly made topics focused on “I hate men!” And “I hate Muslims”. Eventually we will say it needs to slow or stop. 

While we will allow some contentious topics some breathing room, some topics will not be allowed. One example of that is the occasional defense of pedophilia or beastiality. Not here. 

And yes I know I can come across as a smartass in DM’s when people use regurgitated phases about abuse of power, bias, and censorship, but if anyone disagrees with a discussion being locked I will hear them out, especially of there is some form of compromise solution. I mean, it’s a shame we can’t have more delicate conversations here about sex and other hot topics without someone going out of their way to make it weird for others due to some self-indulgence pushing their to talk about their fetish experiences and desires. 

Anyway, just a few random thoughts to keep discussion going

Well I want to thank you. I appreciate your honesty with where you're coming with the rest of your points. The key points that I highlighted out in bold however, while a fair point, is one of those 'Grey Area' Issues indeed and seems like nothing can be done about it unless there was a mod willing to observe the Grey Area effectively. Because at the end of the day, what I've experienced towards my adversaries was a one big giant loophole they're exploiting when Debating with me in the long run. Clever and Devious.

I'm not really as smart as I thought compared to my opposers.

Just read this fascinating article after you made your post,

https://lifehacker.com/bending-the-rules-when-are-loopholes-evil-1648397509

If this is how things are truly going down at Debate Pit, then I might as well not even bother. No matter how formal I make my arguments, how direct I come across when debating, and how thought-provoking I make my points without coming across disrespectful at all in order to make a meaningful discussion, none of it ultimately matters. Because of this loophole to be a 'dickhead' indirectly to the point that anyone can exercise their right to be a passive aggressive provoker without making it come across as such. That's frightening.

Well just like smoking I'm going to start quitting making any more future posts on Debate Symposium from this point on and simply not even bother. Because its ultimately meaningless thanks to this loophole Debaters can cheekily exploit. Why be an insulting asshat directly, when you can do so indirectly without making it seem like as such? Holy Shit. My mind's going off the deep end that I never thought it would go. I wonder if I did it too. Did I? Yes? No? Maybe? IDK.

Excuse me if you will, I'm just gonna have a mental breakdown. But I'm done. K thanks bye.

Walt Disney was a visionary and a great artist. He may have his flaws, but he never lets his flaws blind his vision in making memorable classics. Taking stories that were in the public domain and Disney-fying them. Walt Disney Animations is what gave birth and influence to the Anime Industry in Japan.

Fantasia is beautiful, along with Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs, and Pinnochio. The Disney shorts involving Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Goofy were no slouches either although some of them came across a bit too propagandistic and dated which is to be expected since Warner Bros. were no different back then. Their timeless humor does hold up though alongside Tom & Jerry.

The animations of these old animated films hold up even to this day. I will always have respect for Hand Drawn Animations far more so than Flash. I know you can do a similar process in Flash where you can animate similarly to Hand Drawn. However, nothing beats the amount of time, effort, struggle, and patience of drawing that piece of animation over and over till it looks like eye candy. Walt Disney IMO would be ashamed for what his company has become.

2 hours ago, Jeric said:

I am assuming that this is not due to a specific message or moderation action. Otherwise I would have just locked this and invited an honest private conversation between the Administration and you over how the site is moderated. In the we allowed these sorts of discussions to go on and on and on under the guise and pretense it was for community improvement, which it rarely ever was. So if this is the case let me know now so we can take this up in a DM. 

I asked that this be moved to Feedback. I’ll allow the community to opine. My initial (but not final) thoughts on DS are this: 

In the end most of what I tossed into the Debate section are best practices. Using a logical fallacy or incorrect information isn’t going to be challenged by staff directly. I do want to give the younger or less experienced users who may not be aware of the finer points of Philosophy a chance to give their thoughts. The rules currently all boil down to one general thing — don’t be an insulting asshat. That will never change. 

I did entertain the idea of a more structured and formal format for debate, however it quickly became very apparent that few people know how formal debates are conducted. Also, because of the general level and flavor of pathos and humor found in that section, finding staffers willing to manage such a concept becomes a time sink none of us are prepared to undertake. The reputation of that section precedes it. Sometimes it is impossible to tell if someone there is being genuinely naive, a troll, or so caught up in their own internal vacuum of ideas that they can here anything beyond the white noise of their chosen talking points. Such is the internet. 

And then there is my personal taste. There are users in there I would love to engage with on a discussion. All of them have widely diverse views. @Twiggy and @Goat-kun are definitely not individuals who share my personal worldview but I actually enjoy reading what they have to say, and even engaging them from time to time. I certainly don’t want to have a formal debate with them. For one, I have a feeling that they wouldn’t like that sort of overly structured system. Two, they would probably kick my ass in a genuine debate.  I’m like most and don’t like losing.

 

So, if anyone has any other thoughts on the section, shoot away. 

I see. I guess that's fair since most of people would want to keep their arguments short and sweet which results in them being informal in the long run in order for it to be easily digestible for viewers unlike a formal argument which requires a bit more to digest. For the record I mostly come across naive when it comes to debating with users around here in the grand scheme of things.

However, what you've wrote as your general rule is what I've come to observe so far in my experience with Debate Pit, but on a more grey area issue. While I understand most users are not trying to come across as an insulting asshat, what I take issue with is how they don't need to come across as an insulting asshat in their posts directly. Instead they can indirectly come across as an insulting asshat by being passive aggressive, backhanded provokers within their posts. Let me give an example that would demonstrate my point,

I make a point that I believe Suffering is not a good excuse IMO because it is a part of Life and anyone who makes an argument that "This So-and-So will suffer" as a logical argument comes across as an emotional response whenever someone makes a post about something that involves Suffering towards something or someone and doesn't necessarily mean that this argument is logical in anyway. Here's a rebuttal from one of my opposers, 

Quote

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Sure, suffering is part of life but that doesn't mean that it's fine to cause suffering. I mean you would probably get pretty mad if I kicked you in the balls, even though suffering is a part of life.

How does this help me understand this person's argument in question? If anything he comes across as a passive aggressive, backhanded, provoking person misconstruing the point of what I originally intended about my argument towards Suffering.

Like I said it's a grey area issue here where on one hand maybe that's not what I perceive as such since he's just a making a point. However it doesn't change the fact that my opposer is currently going on an emotional tangent where an argument could be made that he's implicitly coming across as an 'insulting asshat' or 'being a dick' which is unacceptable.

Not only was this example of mine misconstrued, but from my experiences there are certain topics where these posts unfortunately come across as such.

If this grey area issue is acceptable behavior in Debate Pit then I believe the time is right to create a new Area within the EverFree Forest Forum. This new area within the EverFree Forest Forum shall be known as "The Rhetoric Grounds of Tartarus" where people don't have to respect your opinions, understand where you're coming from, and have a meaningful discussion unlike Debate Pit. Instead you get to crush opposing ideas, questions, opinions, and facts people make at any means necessary. Committing Logical Fallacies in the highest order? Check. Insulting your opponents left and right? Check. Defecating all over their arguments to make it completely irrelevant without explaining why it's irrelevant? Check. Ridiculing your opponents forever even if they die? Check.

That or what @Twiggy said and get a Mod for DS lol. 

2 hours ago, Frostgage said:

Obviously there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting an institution to be the best it can possibly be. However, it's important to remember that this is just the internet, and a public forum at that. No user should be obligated to see a debate all the way through to the end, display perfect logic in all of their posts, or anything of that sort - I believe this is why that excerpt is called "best practices" and not straight-up rules. The only requirement is the general "don't be a dick" thing Jeric mentioned; as long as people are posting in order to debate the given topic and not to simply antagonize others, that's the most you can ask for. imo this is just the reality of the internet and something you'll have to live with, regardless of whom you feel is in the right in a given situation.

Well I understand what you mean, but from my experience while some of my opponents are not coming across as 'dickheads' directly, they are indirectly coming across as passive aggressive, backhanded, provoking, shit stirrers which is another form of being a 'dickhead' though indirectly of course. You can look all over my post with the example to see my point. Other than that I agree and understand where you're coming from. Perhaps my mind can go off the literal route where if I practice and preach hard enough than it becomes secondary in nature to me and anybody who opposes what I practice and preach accordingly in wherever I am, it comes across as if they're breaking DA RULZ when really Practicing and Preaching doesn't necessarily have to correlate with Following the Rules.

Every now and then I find a select few topics in Debate Pit that piqued my curiosity and willing to chime in to discuss that which would be relevant to the topic at hand. I discuss it by explaining that which hasn't been brought up in the discussion. So far my experiences with Debate Pit has been pretty modest. However, I have come across such Debaters whom I believe don't do a good job debating with me at hand and what I personally believe violates the rules and etiquette that are mandatory when being a Debater in Debate Pit.

One of the most basic rules and etiquettes I believe some of my Debaters violate are the following according to the Debate Symposium Rules & Handbook,

Quote

Debate Pit Best Practices

• Do not engage to convince the user - This is often overlooked, but in a public forum you have an audience that is reading your posts and viewpoints. Instead of engaging the individual in some one on one contest of logos v logos, consider presenting your views as if you were trying to convince that ideal reader. After all, the individual you are quoting may be firmly entrenched in their beliefs.
• Try and base your arguments off of logic and not just emotion - Yes appealing to the authority of oneself and to emotion may dissuade or convince a less informed user, but should you try this against someone who is prepared and knowledgeable, this is a recipe for disaster for your point.
• Treat other debaters with comradery and not hostility - Debate is not a sport of combat or teams, it’s a sport of understanding and finding common ground. One should be able to set aside their feelings and differences as much as possible so as not to do any disservice to either their fellow members or themselves.

Now the reason why I highlighted out these specific three points is because some of the Debaters who wish to Debate with me come across as such whenever they're debating with me. I could be asking a simple question that would be relevant within Debate Pit and apparently these Debaters who I have a problem with wish to take offense with everything I've said to support the relevancy of my question that would be meaningful. Such Debaters I have a problem with intend to cherry pick and misconstrue my posts to fit under their narrative.

I will provide examples and proofs of how I debate with my opposers and how my opposers debate with me through a basic Logical Ground where Debater A is Myself while Debater B is My Opposer. This is Quote 1,

Quote

Debater A brings an argumentative question and supports his question with relevant key points all throughout his post to supplement his argumentative question.

Debater B cherry picks the argumentative question along with certain key points (AKA Quote Mine) throughout Debater A's post to go off on an emotional tangent, take offense, and shoot down Debater A's post as irrelevant to the discussion without going in the details explicitly to explain why Debater A's is irrelevant.

Therefore, Debater A's argument in a nutshell is irrelevant.

I witness some Debaters from my experience that "quote mine" to the extreme in order to misconstrue my post entirely (AKA Straw Manning) which is honestly unacceptable not just for myself to understand their points, but for themselves, and for the Debate Pit entirely.

The way how I usually Debate as Debater A with my Debaters as Debater B is the following under Quote 2 below,

Quote

Debater B brings an argumentative question and supports his question with relevant key points all throughout his post to supplement his argumentative question.

Debater A quotes the entire post of Debater B's while highlighting out certain statements within that quote in either bold or underline to make that particular statement seem more significant, does his best to understand where Debater B is coming from in relation to the highlighted statements on top of the rest of his quotes in order to not fully undermine Debater B's post. The rest of the points that are not highlighted will be treated according to Debater A as a fair point and leave it at that. However, if it doesn't and comes across irrelevant, Debater A will be willing to explain how Debater B's un-highlighted points throughout his post is irrelevant.

Therefore, Debater A acknowledges Debater B's points while not undermining his points entirely.

I want to answer a poignant question. Which Debate as I put them all in quotes seems acceptable at face value to be a more meaningful and thought-provoking discussion? Quote 1 or Quote 2?

I understand the way how I quote my Debaters at face value might not seem all that different since if I'm willing to bold/underline certain statements while at the same time quoting the whole post of my opposer's post then it is no different from my opposer quote mining specific points within my post.

However, there's a huge distinction that separates between me and my opposer with the way how I quote and the way how my opposer quotes.

At least with my method, I'm willing to explain either their points are fair. If not, then I explain how their un-highlighted points are irrelevant explicitly and conclude that the un-highlighted points does not add up to the discussion in relation to their highlighted statements that I deem worthy. Which is why I quote the whole post entirely in order to understand the big picture (highlighted statements) and the little details (un-highlighted statements) on top of that throughout their post in order to come to a more reasonable conclusion of their post.

Whereas my Opposer's method "quote-mining" comes across as if they don't care what I've said throughout my post entirely and they're simply misconstruing my post entirely (AKA Straw Manning) to fit under their narrative in order to highlight out how irrelevant my post is while ignoring the little details to explain their points in an explicit manner for why my post is irrelevant to begin with.

What they're doing is not Debating anymore IMHO, but simply finding out flaws within that person's argument, and only focus on the flaws of that person's argument to undermine the whole point of his post entirely which is unacceptable. This is a shallow, narrow-minded and biased perspective of how anyone in their right mind should ever debate with another person.

I will leave behind these forms of Logical Fallacies that my opposers have committed against me so they can look back at most of their posts and think twice about making their future posts in the future. It's not only helpful for them, but for myself and for others as well,

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/51/Argument-from-Fallacy

I know that I'm not a perfect individual as well, but I do my best to understand what I don't understand. I may have committed a violation of at least one rule within the Debate Pit Rules & Handbook which is obsessively making the same points over and over again. However, in my defense I don't understand my opposers's points and I re-iterate my points again to highlight out why my opposers are ignoring them to help me understand. My violation is nothing compared to the numerable violations that my opposers have committed against me.

"Most of what you said is irrelevant to the discussion. Therefore the rest of everything you said so far is irrelevant throughout this discussion."

How is most of what I said deemed irrelevant to the discussion? Can you explain and provide points on your end for how most of my points are irrelevant to the discussion? You won't explain? You're just gonna leave me hanging here? So basically your point of deeming most of what I said being irrelevant is by you making an argument from fallacy (argumentum ad logicum) against me. Or how I'd like to personally call it The Irrelevant Fallacy where a person claims that a point you make is irrelevant to the discussion, but doesn't go on the details at all to help the person understand why is it irrelevant. How is this helpful? Typical shitshow in debates.

Followers are more of the norm when dealing with online social forums.

But a Friend is something more meaningful than a Follower. A Follower doesn’t necessarily have to be your friend, while a Friend always follow you no matter how bad things get cause they have so much in common.

But other than that I have nothing against people who wanna follow me though I really could care less about this “Follow The Person” system cause it’ll breed a sense of desire for that person being Followed to become arrogant.

In my case, I’m better off making as many enemies as inhumanly possible cause it’ll give me the motivation to keep going with my Life. It’ll aspire me to become better, stronger, and smarter than my enemies. All for the sake of achieving my own independence and survival.

Seen you. Don’t know you. Rarely to Almost Never interacted but you OK.

Alex Jones: People willingly get together and love each other, and feel each other, and fk each other, and kill each other, and eat each other. Also, Sandy Hook School Shooting is a conspiracy theory along with the US Government putting chemicals in our waters that turn the friggin’ Frogs Gay.

I think I’m going to be physically sick after reading that NPR article. Sex Trafficking is just as bad as Animal Abuse. May Jeffrey Epstein be cursed for life and rot in the deepest pits in hell forever.

Oh word selector on my iPhone. Plz give me your words of wisdom again but this time me tapping words that appear on the far left,

“Is the rest of the Israelites was the day I wanna was a good day I wanna was a good day I wanna was a good day”

 Awe-inspiring. Repetition is gold. Repetition is key to living a good and successful life in this world. True way for the Israelites to live like this for the sake of Humanity to have a good day. (No joke, the Israelite part for real on my iPhone word selector in quote. lolz)

Wait I have a reputation? 

I'm more infamous around these parts.

57 minutes ago, ~Angel Dust~ said:

Ooh! That sounds... like I should feel sorrow for our losses. Losing all of those gorgeous members...

Cocks are delicious when deep fried. Colonel Sanders love em thick and juicy. No shame in eating cocks as long as the procedure is painless. Body tattooing cocks on the other hand is just straight up begging to be punished (daddy?) and male cruelty at its finest.

And yes I'm sane as enasinsaneassinine. Fight for the rights of cocks everywhere. They have a right to live just as much as we and if we wanna eat them give them a painless,  humane, and respectful death.

Oh word selectors on my iphone. Plz give me your words of wisdom for today only by tapping at the words that come from the far right,

“Has and how about the corn 🌾 I gotta day we have to come home 🏠 night we will go see you later 👋 I love 💗 your way I am at home 🏠 this morning is a little fun but when y’all get here I’ll be back”

 That is so beautiful. Education is beautiful.

Kentucky Fried Cock

7 hours ago, Lucky Bolt said:

Oooh I love this one!! My turn

I'm just going to go to bed now that yeah I know you. 

“Hi 👋 I just wanna is that I cannot begin to imagine how much fun you are and how about you make sure you get your message about the coming days of your life.”

Word selectors again.

“I don’t know if I wanna was a good day I wanna was a good day I wanna was a good day.”

Word selectors on your iPhone keyboard everyone.

This fantasy is far from final. The worst has yet to come.

Food Fetish

I have a rigid body to the point where my body cracks in odd places. My toes. My knees. My fingers and knuckles. My elbows.

I’m not that flexible. In fact, my body cracks so much you might as well call me The Cracken. So far, my physical health is in good condition according to my physician despite all the crackiness of my body.

Senpai. I think I did, however I don’t remember my senpai entirely through memory. If I did, then perhaps me not remembering my senpai entirely must be a traumatic experience so great that my mind has suppressed it.

Had many crushes in my life, but did not give in to them since obviously I’ll be crushed and followed the Lone Wolf route ever since.

I’m doing OK so far with my decision. Don’t really need a senpai anyway.

My favorite body part is my brain. So wonderful in many ways yet so corruptable. The gateway to the Human mind of the person. It’s not entirely muscle, but it’s something we can extract out of the human skull through surgery to see what it looks like.

About 4 of them to be exact. Heavy sleeper here. Sometimes they work for me. Other times they don’t. 50/50 really.