The boards.cgccomics.com Forum Discussion Thread

"Exes" and "marbles."

Last warning.

Next one using "Pejorative Terms" gets banned.

Debate as intensely as you want, but treat each other with respect and civility or suffer the consequences.

Since moderation is going to leave this here, I'm going to address this publicly, because only evil things live in darkness. 

Someone's personal relationships are not any stranger's business but the type of stranger that makes such a statement, especially from an anonymous account is the worst type of stranger.

My ex's and I (all of them through the course of my entire life) are on great terms, we talk regularly and although I initially chose to separate, it was a mutual decision. 

In fact, it was the best thing that ever happened to me as it put me on a trajectory of growth that has changed my life for the best. 

Unbelievable how low some can go. It's disgusting.

I don't think you understand what the phrase "bad faith" means or how poorly you form your public arguments. 

Even the term "bad faith" is used as an ad hominem attack since it's nearly impossible to prove someone's motive. 

My point about RMA fact checking you wasn't contentious at all. It was factual.

You reply directly to EVERY comment, and you have used ad hominem attacks more often than anyone else has used them against you, and so if RMA had fact checked your debate points as often as he did everyone else's, the thread length would have doubled. 

The way you "win" the discussion about who attributed flight to Thor is if you have DIRECT evidence proving Kirby attributed flight to Thor.

Instead, YOU YOURSELF stated that you have no idea what Kirby directly was responsible for in regards to Thor's attributes (!!!! That alone is enough to disprove your entire thesis on this theory !!!!), and you offered a quote about Kirby generalizing how he came up with Thor's attributes - nothing specific, with NO history or precedent of any of Kirby's Thors every flying throughout the GA or SA prior to Marvel Thor, and then you offered Stan's quote speaking about giving Thor the attribute of flight as a contradiction, saying "Stan lied" because Kirby's quote contradicts Stan's quote. 

Like, what??? I mean, to call those a contradiction is lunacy. 

Dude. The quotes don't contradict each other. If anything, they support each other like Jenga or even Tetris blocks. 

Then you use circumstantial evidence (like Stan Lee never created anything memorable or successful alone) as "proof" that he couldn't have given Thor the attribute of flight. 

So strange. It makes no sense whatsoever. 

When you're not have a discussion in reality, using reason and logic, then appealing to public support is the last resort in every disagreement in every society. 

Chuck, your first quote above is an absolute, unequivocal proof of how intellectually dishonest you are in a debate.

I did not say "the book sounds like a rant." 

You cut my quote because my quote means something completely different than what you wrote when it's quoted in it's entirety.  

This is what I said:

"Based on the Bleeding Cool review, the book sounds like a rant."

 boards.cgccomics.com/topic/538656-stan-lee-lied-your-handy-guide-to-every-lie-in-the-origins-of-marvel-comics/?do=findComment&comment=13283326

My post from Sept 13 is unedited, which makes you a liar, misrepresenting what was actually said. 

And this is why your points are never 'wrong', because they change shape, and continue to twist the truth by bending what other people say making the 'truth' and the 'facts' a moving target. 

In fact, I now believe you don't even realize you're doing it, which is even more dangerous than doing it purposefully.

---------------------

My point above proves you are consistently, intellectually dishonest, but I'm out of my depth?

Hmmm...

---------------------

I've already consistently shown you how you don't understand what "proof" is because your proofs are based on intellectually dishonest arguments. 

And every single discussion that you're engaged with has the same results. It's why I'm CERTAIN you were Zod on this forum last year. It was the same person with the same writing style and same arguments using a different avatar. 

--------------------

The tin-foil hat sombrero is an ad hominem attack. You call people out for debating in bad faith while you do it yourself. 

Where's RMA to fact check you? 

--------------------

Finally, going back to my first point, I NEVER SAID LOGIC IS DETERMINED THAT WAY. 

You again cut my quote and changed what I said.

Reread what I wrote:

"When you're not have a discussion in reality, using reason and logic, then appealing to public support is the last resort in every disagreement in every society."


This means that when reason and logic fail, force and numbers are the last resort. Moderators, a jury, war, referendums, etc are all social mechanisms and transactions that occur when people can no longer agree using reason or logic. 

. You're the one changing what you said into a different meaning.

"When you're not have a discussion in reality, using reason and logic, then appealing to public support is the last resort in every disagreement in every society."

Doesn't change anything I claimed. Public support doesn't prove a damn thing. More people accepted the vaccines than didn't, it didn't stop you from going on and on and on and on....

You selectively changed my quote, which in turn changed the entire meaning of my quote. You misrepresented my quote.

It changes everything because I was basing my point on what Bleeding Cool said. 

In a court of law, during testimony, you're comment would be stricken from the record. 

No.

I'm saying what I meant two different ways for clarity. My intended meaning doesn't change, and that meaning is that facts, logic and reason are the preferred method to resolve problems, but if the problems are not resolved using logic and reason, then numbers and popularity become the only resort left. 

Regarding the vaccines, 3 years later, the truth is still being discovered, we now know that much of the "facts" were covered up by Government, Big Pharma and complicit parties, making the use of logic and reason impossible back then, and the logic is still being established as the facts continue to come to light.

What is being discovered is that the lies about the vaccines were greater than the public originally was led to believe, and so the public opinion in changing. 

In fact, in 60 years, I think the majority will side with what was considered the "fringe" during the pandemic.

Much like how in your opinion, Stan Lee is on the wrong side of the truth and you are trying to sway everyone's beliefs. It happens over time. 

Double ouchies