• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Is Bellgab Forum Dying?

Started by damon, February 05, 2017, 06:27:57 PM

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Hog on August 01, 2017, 11:43:34 PM
In the video he acted as if he didn't understand the concept of a "reasonable person", perhaps he really didn't.

I know that one definition for "reasonable person" is: an ordinary person who avoids extremes of both boldness and carefulness. 

peace
Hog

Right. So, no bold ideas or careful (conservative) ideas. Any other ideas that a reasonable person isn't allowed to entertain?  ???

Lilith

Quote from: Hog on August 01, 2017, 11:43:34 PM
In the video he acted as if he didn't understand the concept of a "reasonable person", perhaps he really didn't.

I know that one definition for "reasonable person" is: an ordinary person who avoids extremes of both boldness and carefulness. 

peace
Hog

That definition of a reasonable person varies from different points of view, and is not absolute. It is dependent on the perceivers point of view.

Who defines who is bold and who is careful?

For example:

  If you are "far left" for example, then "far right" is bold, and neutral is careful.  If you are "far right", then "far left" is bold, and neutral is careful.

Also, what gives her, or anyone else the right to decide that bold and careful people shouldn't be invited into discussions?  That in itself, is censorship.

Hog

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on August 01, 2017, 11:47:59 PM
Right. So, no bold ideas or careful (conservative) ideas. Any other ideas that a reasonable person isn't allowed to entertain?  ???
If that's your perception, sure, but I think the key to the definition I posted is the "extreme" part.

peace
Hog

Hog

Quote from: brig on August 01, 2017, 11:49:05 PM
That definition of a reasonable person varies from different points of view, and is not absolute. It is dependent on the perceivers point of view.

Who defines who is bold and who is careful?

For example:

  If you are "far left" for example, then "far right" is bold, and neutral is careful.  If you are "far right", then "far left" is bold, and neutral is careful.
Your eg make sense to me.

peace
Hog

Lilith

Train minds to be strong, able to think for themselves, work their way through difficult arguments and situations.  I know, thats really hard work for a teacher or a parent.  It's much less work, and much easier to control people who can't think for themselves. Her premise, that difficult speech causes illness, works only if you haven't taught people how to think through a difficult conversation with opposite points of view, relationship, job or situation.  IMO.

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Hog on August 01, 2017, 11:56:48 PM
If that's your perception, sure, but I think the key to the definition I posted is the "extreme" part.

peace
Hog

My perception?! These are words and either they have meaning or they don't. Brig is right. The guy who first proposed germ theory was considered "extreme" by his colleagues and ridiculed out of academia. I guess he just wasn't being reasonable.  ::)

Ready to admit that you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about yet and that this is just an attempt to censor ideas that you personally don't like?  :D

ZaZa

Quote from: brig on August 01, 2017, 11:49:05 PM
That definition of a reasonable person varies from different points of view, and is not absolute. It is dependent on the perceivers point of view.

Who defines who is bold and who is careful?

For example:

  If you are "far left" for example, then "far right" is bold, and neutral is careful.  If you are "far right", then "far left" is bold, and neutral is careful.

Also, what gives her, or anyone else the right to decide that bold and careful people shouldn't be invited into discussions?  That in itself, is censorship.

The same simpletoninan theory could be applied to your comment that you are forcing your point of approach to things on her, no ??


Lilith

Quote from: ZaZa on August 02, 2017, 12:24:59 AM
The same simpletoninan theory could be applied to your comment that you are forcing your point of approach to things on her, no ??

No.

She can invite, or not invite whoever she wants into a conversation. Nobody is trying to control or manipulate her by telling her she will cause people illness because of who she chooses to invite, or not invite.

ZaZa

Quote from: brig on August 02, 2017, 12:29:24 AM
No.

She can invite, or not invite whoever she wants into a conversation. Nobody is trying to control or manipulate her by telling her she will cause people illness because of who she chooses to invite, or not invite.

OK you made a fair point.
I'm going to give you the same score as I gave to Jackstar today:  A+ 

Lilith

Quote from: ZaZa on August 02, 2017, 12:47:06 AM
OK you made a fair point.
I'm going to give you the same score as I gave to Jackstar today:  A+

Give me a moment to pick myself up off the floor...

Thank You,  I think.  :o

I thought the reasonable persons standard applied to law - in court cases - and involved how a person would act in certain circumstances, or what danger they might have foreseen.  Also, for cases involving contracts what standard duty of care a reasonable person would take.  Obviously these can be grey areas as well, and that's for a jury to determine, or even determine the reasonable person doctrine would not apply to a the specific case.

I don't think it has a thing to do with determining what speech should be allowed.  And she knew it.  And it's why the host kept hammering away on it. 

She's another phony left-wing professor.  It was great when he told her this garbage might work in her classroom with a bunch of easily led kids (or however he put it), but not with him

ZaZa

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on August 02, 2017, 01:38:00 AM
I thought the reasonable persons standard applied to law - in court cases - and involved how a person would act in certain circumstances, or what danger they might have foreseen.  Also, for cases involving contracts what standard duty of care a reasonable person would take.  Obviously these can be grey areas as well, and that's for a jury to determine, or even determine the reasonable person doctrine would not apply to a the specific case.

I don't think it has a thing to do with determining what speech should be allowed.  And she knew it.  And it's why the host kept hammering away on it. 

She's another phony left-wing professor.  It was great when he told her this garbage might work in her classroom with a bunch of easily led kids (or however he put it), but not with him

TLDR, (and don't really give a f*ck right now because)
LOOK what brig did to my macho avatar :( :( :(
fucking roses :(





I think this chart is much more accurate than alexa

Lilith

This is David Ickes latest YouTube release.  I like to listen to him even though I don't agree with everything he says.  In this video, I particularly think his ideas about information and "negativity" are useful to this discussion.

https://youtu.be/ZsA33fgFK_A


Hog

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on August 02, 2017, 12:12:45 AM
My perception?! These are words and either they have meaning or they don't. Brig is right. The guy who first proposed germ theory was considered "extreme" by his colleagues and ridiculed out of academia. I guess he just wasn't being reasonable.  ::)

Ready to admit that you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about yet and that this is just an attempt to censor ideas that you personally don't like?  :D
The term is "reasonable person".  If you don't like the first definition I post, go find another, there are many.

Ready to admit that you have a very small view on the world and its issues.  You ask a question, get an answer and then go on the attack.  Step back and realize that there is an entire world outside of yourself.  It would be nice to have a conversation with you, but you are just way to high strung.  Get out of your own way.

peace
Hog

Hog

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on August 02, 2017, 01:38:00 AM
I thought the reasonable persons standard applied to law - in court cases - and involved how a person would act in certain circumstances, or what danger they might have foreseen.  Also, for cases involving contracts what standard duty of care a reasonable person would take.  Obviously these can be grey areas as well, and that's for a jury to determine, or even determine the reasonable person doctrine would not apply to a the specific case.

I don't think it has a thing to do with determining what speech should be allowed.  And she knew it.  And it's why the host kept hammering away on it. 

She's another phony left-wing professor.  It was great when he told her this garbage might work in her classroom with a bunch of easily led kids (or however he put it), but not with him

You're correct in law it applies to hypothetical people.  There are many definitions for the term "reasonable person", depending on the venue it which it is used. 
I do think that he kept harping on it because she showed a weakness, and that's what some people do when they orally joust-must win argument. Cant blame him though, its his show, he must win.

The "classroom" comment was a good burn.  I think I literally heard a "ZING".

peace
Hog

Hog

Quote from: nooryisawesome on August 02, 2017, 03:23:52 PM


I think this chart is much more accurate than alexa
At least the X and Y axis make sense in this graph.  Thanks.

peace
Hog

ZaZa

Quote from: nooryisawesome on August 02, 2017, 03:23:52 PM


I think this chart is much more accurate than alexa

interesting that it peaked on Feb.17.2017
and on Feb.17.2017 I registered one of my usernames and started posting that day.
do you think it's a coincidence?


Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Hog on August 02, 2017, 08:56:11 PM
The term is "reasonable person".  If you don't like the first definition I post, go find another, there are many.

Ready to admit that you have a very small view on the world and its issues.  You ask a question, get an answer and then go on the attack.  Step back and realize that there is an entire world outside of yourself.  It would be nice to have a conversation with you, but you are just way to high strung.  Get out of your own way.

peace
Hog

I'm not high strung. You just can provide a definition of what you mean. And the fact that there are many definitions should tell you something. I suppose it's a sign of the times that you feel like someone asking you a question (which, BTW, you couldn't answer) is attacking you. If you are going to attempt to censor people by means of that term you better damn well know what it means and you don't seem to be able to provide a specific definition other than bullshit like not extreme which is so open to interpretation that one could justify including or excluding anyone you wanted from that group. I'm glad you come here because it gives me a chance to provide real world examples of the kind of BS our politicians and journalists expect us to swallow without question. They usually can't say what they mean either.  :D

ZaZa

Quote from: sendafan2013 on August 02, 2017, 09:28:48 PM
what is a bellgab?

it's a forum named after a bell who abandoned his own children in order to become famous radio host.
or a famous catguy who lives in Nevada and has a stalker inside his ass,
and has a very young wifu who very soon will be single and available and she will be a multimillionaire...



Hog

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on August 02, 2017, 09:28:58 PM
I'm not high strung. You just can provide a definition of what you mean. And the fact that there are many definitions should tell you something. I suppose it's a sign of the times that you feel like someone asking you a question (which, BTW, you couldn't answer) is attacking you. If you are going to attempt to censor people by means of that term you better damn well know what it means and you don't seem to be able to provide a specific definition other than bullshit like not extreme which is so open to interpretation that one could justify including or excluding anyone you wanted from that group. I'm glad you come here because it gives me a chance to provide real world examples of the kind of BS our politicians and journalists expect us to swallow without question. They usually can't say what they mean either.  :D
The issue I have with you on occasion is that even if someone agrees with you on a point, but disagrees with you on another, you focus on the disagreement.  Black or White thinking when there is a many shades of grey.

You asked for a definition, I provided one,  I didn't say the prof. was right or wrong with using the term other than she really didn't seem to be able to back it up.

You asked for a definition, I provided one.   I didn't even apply its use to the video.  Then this comes along
"Ready to admit that you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about yet and that this is just an attempt to censor ideas that you personally don't like?"

It could very well be an attempt to censor ideas, but I have no idea if I personally don't like them or not. Don't read into the words, just read the words.

Don't hide behind the guise that you were just asking questions, you are smarter than.  I use questions to obtain information, you use them as setups to attempt to move your agenda forward. I didn't feel attacked, you go on the attack, as in go on the offensive.  ( the word offensive, I mean the opposite of defense-in regards to strategy, not the other "offensive" which means to cause you to feel angry or upset-since you don't realize that words CAN have more than one meaning).

If there was a question that you feel I didn't answer, please re ask it.  I don't pretend to be at my best communicating via the keyboard.

peace
Hog

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Hog on August 03, 2017, 03:13:27 AM
The issue I have with you on occasion is that even if someone agrees with you on a point, but disagrees with you on another, you focus on the disagreement.  Black or White thinking when there is a many shades of grey.

You asked for a definition, I provided one,  I didn't say the prof. was right or wrong with using the term other than she really didn't seem to be able to back it up.

You asked for a definition, I provided one.   I didn't even apply its use to the video.  Then this comes along
"Ready to admit that you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about yet and that this is just an attempt to censor ideas that you personally don't like?"

It could very well be an attempt to censor ideas, but I have no idea if I personally don't like them or not. Don't read into the words, just read the words.

Don't hide behind the guise that you were just asking questions, you are smarter than.  I use questions to obtain information, you use them as setups to attempt to move your agenda forward. I didn't feel attacked, you go on the attack, as in go on the offensive.  ( the word offensive, I mean the opposite of defense-in regards to strategy, not the other "offensive" which means to cause you to feel angry or upset-since you don't realize that words CAN have more than one meaning).

If there was a question that you feel I didn't answer, please re ask it.  I don't pretend to be at my best communicating via the keyboard.

peace
Hog

My agenda?! You mean free speech? Yes, I do advocate for that but I was asking you a serious question. You claimed to have some formula for figuring out who to censor and so I asked for more details about that but you couldn't provide them except to refer to a vague definition that can be widely interpreted. I provided an example that pointed out the absurdity in your definition and you came back with a bunch more vague lifecoach type advice to me about getting out of my own way or something that didn't even seem applicable to the discussion. Like most you'll be all for this kind of collective coercion until it comes after ideas that you value and then you'll complain about your rights being infringed. Someone will provide you with a vague definition about why that is. Hopefully that will suffice.  ;)

BTW, what you call going on the offensive used to just be called thinking and reasoning.  Realz over feelz. :D


ZaZa

Quote from: Hog on August 03, 2017, 03:13:27 AM
The issue I have with you on occasion is that even if someone agrees with you on a point, but disagrees with you on another, you focus on the disagreement.  Black or White thinking when there is a many shades of grey.

You asked for a definition, I provided one,  I didn't say the prof. was right or wrong with using the term other than she really didn't seem to be able to back it up.

You asked for a definition, I provided one.   I didn't even apply its use to the video.  Then this comes along
"Ready to admit that you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about yet and that this is just an attempt to censor ideas that you personally don't like?"

It could very well be an attempt to censor ideas, but I have no idea if I personally don't like them or not. Don't read into the words, just read the words.

Don't hide behind the guise that you were just asking questions, you are smarter than.  I use questions to obtain information, you use them as setups to attempt to move your agenda forward. I didn't feel attacked, you go on the attack, as in go on the offensive.  ( the word offensive, I mean the opposite of defense-in regards to strategy, not the other "offensive" which means to cause you to feel angry or upset-since you don't realize that words CAN have more than one meaning).

If there was a question that you feel I didn't answer, please re ask it.  I don't pretend to be at my best communicating via the keyboard.

peace
Hog

Hog [or Pig],
I know you answering Dr.MD but this line is a solid proof how so very often you are making total fool out of yourself.
What do you expect people to do, to focus on agreements and go in circles to talk about how much they appreciate that you agreeing with them ??
Of course people will focus on disagreements [for two reasons] to explain something to the other person,
or to prove how stupid they are, like what I'm doing right now in your case.

Your attempts to be "super clever" always backfiring on you...maybe time to change strategy...

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod