llamavore

I like how you can see the cactuar's buttcrack at the bottom

[quote name='Bassbob' timestamp='1323989090' post='2879147'] OP [/quote] I appreciate whoever this is trying to troll our political opposition and create sympathy for us, but needs more subtlety to be believable. also, I know mods where you live. maybe I should call them and have them ban you at your house.

Furthermore, I am compelled to speak on behalf of the truth with which I have been entrusted, specifically about some of the doctrines and practices of the new abrahamic mystery religion; [quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1323965076' post='2878883'] While it is certainly impossible to shelter every person's opinions and ensure they are never offended, that doesn't mean that it's ok that they are. ... No one should be faced with intolerance and cruelty simply because they are different, and the greater community as a whole should not support that. I thought as a mass population we grew beyond bigotry, by reactions in this thread we are far from it. I am thoroughly disappointed and disgusted. [/quote] Let's be clear that any sort of offense, any sort of opinion, any sort of bigotry, disappointment, intolerance, or disgust, is a form of value judgement. People have always discriminated (judged some things as good/greater and some things as bad/lesser) and those who survive always will. [b]People Like You[/b] often take the intellectual and ethical low road by branding all discrimination as unfair, because humans have always failed to discriminate with perfect accuracy. Consciously, you give up on discrimination because you don't want to shoulder the weight of the consequences if you are wrong; yet the consequences for giving up are far greater, because you have discriminated against discrimination itself, and thereby dead-ended the evolution of your own ability to discriminate, preventing it from ever being perfected. Luckily, this is never a sincere belief, because people always subconsciously discriminate, and their subconscious will subject them to uncontrollable urges which will force them to confront their need to consciously discriminate. Isllamacism holds discrimination and intolerance to be virtues when exercised with accuracy and objectivity, in effect guided by the other virtues of Isllamacism and therefore done in solidarity with The Woolly Deity, positive ratings and internet fame be upon him. [quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1323992669' post='2879229'] The fact that someone has said something offensive in the past does not make it ok to insult an entire religion... in any circumstance.[/quote] No one in the thread you mentioned insulted an entire religion. However, Muhammallama states clearly in blah blah blah blah blah, therefore it is conceivable for the circumstance you describe to arise.

[quote name='Holy Ruler' timestamp='1323945277' post='2878779'] Imagine going to an AA with mostly Hindu members who would insult Jesus(assuming you are Christian), and the members would say that you are childish when you complain about that. How fair is that? Get off your box. [/quote] I've had a change of heart; this thread has shown me the light. Holy Ruler, clearly you are in the right, far more than you realize in fact. The RIA [i]is[/i] intolerant. I suppose now's as good a time as ever to come out about the mystery religion of Isllamacism, a blend of spirituality, theology and political ideology based on the interpretation of its 4 holy texts (the Torah, the Injeel, the Qur'an, and the Random Insanity boards or 'Riab'). We combine our pseudo-satirical amalgamation of whatever logically salvageable truth we find in these Scriptures with spiritual disciplines we glean from internet culture. The combined text and disciplines are revealed to us by means we will not disclose as being the path to enlightenment in the age of information. Our numbers are few, but growing, along with our discontent. Up to this point we've been forced to marginalize ourselves to obscurity and secrecy due to society's perception that our ritualistic behaviors are derivative, low-brow attempts at simple humor, spiritually insincere, and irrelevant. Add to this perception our utter commitment to values which fundamentally oppose the operating philosophy of the existing power structure and it's clear to see the world is not ready for us; but ready or not, here we come. First I'd like to open by saying that There Is No God But Allamah, and Muhammallama is his prophet, and Llamavore is Muhammallama's alt. As the Alt of Muhammallama I will first address the spiritual truth demonstrated in this thread from the start; what others call 'trolling' is one of the core spiritual disciplines of our faith and as keepers of the divine revelation it is my prerogative to define it; provocative mockery of any sort done purely in the pursuit of lulz, when done to those outside the faith or between those inside; but when done to those within the faith by an outsider, it is always considered to be done with the intent to cause emotional harm and the deepest familiarity with what will offend the victim-believer. Offense at trolling can also be taken even if the trolling occurs between nonbelievers; for example I may take offense to someone's trolling of millions of muslims by attempting to disguise their personal antisocial qualities as a defense of that religion. To RIAers, both the secret believers and the uninitiated: I know that this announcement comes as a surprise, but allow me to reassure you that Muhammallama extends a special grace to the denizens of our holy site, a period of 5 minutes within the reading of this post to choose the true faith, so that they need not be our enemies and suffer our divine bigotry and shens of wrath. discriminate wisely.

For the record, as soon as it became apparent that someone was actually offended, mods on the RIA forums took action and removed posts. I joked at one point that he was injuring my opinion of muslims, and sadly it has become true, because I don't know any other muslims. Using Islam as a shield from personal responsibility and maneuvering it to reinforce his angry childish impulses, he denigrates his entire religion and its millions of followers. If I knew many muslims I would probably be insulted on their behalf that he associates himself with them. HR didn't I tell you if you defended your position patiently you would provide a better example of your religion? You did the exact opposite at every opportunity. Don't accuse RIA of religious intolerance while you practice intolerance -of any form of humor you don't get or way of thinking you don't agree with- in the name of your religion.

I've repeatedly provided quotes that back up my claims and contradict his. Demanding the same of him seems to be the best way to end the discussion.

You said Delta said 'we have to vote.' Delta did not say that. the charter says it; Delta did not say it. oh, I misread what you said in that one statement. In any case my issue was never that 'NSO made us vote' but that Ivan complained about us voting after saying that he didn't mind. I don't care if Ivan made us rush or 'made' us vote. I was only calling him on his bs posturing. and that issue I had was only one post; the 20 or so posts after that were just me addressing your issue with my issue. the ramblings are circular in the hopes that repetition will help you get it, since plain to the point didn't seem to work. to the bold: you're right, that's true, but I repeatedly clarified that it was *in the context* of before the charter being brought up. my argument isn't about what actually could have happened, but what Ivan thought would happen. because this is about what Ivan thought, it doesn't matter that Delta couldn't rush the terms, it only matters that Ivan thought that Delta could rush the terms. starting to make sense? again, true, but because Ivan THOUGHT it was up to himself, what he said about it was self contradictory. it could have been implied; doesn't matter. I'm not ignoring it, it just has nothing at all to do with my original point. Ivan thought that he decided to allow RIA to vote, because he thought delta had the authority to present that as an option. whether his decision actually Did allow us to vote, or whether he only thought he allowed us to vote, is irrelevant, because my argument is about Ivan's character, and it's based on what Ivan thought; not on whether his assumptions were correct but whether his assumptions were handled honestly. in any case, if you don't respond to anything else, please actually attempt to provide a quote of delta saying -in that time frame- that 'we have to vote' or 'we require a vote.' you've claimed he said that, I've quoted him saying the opposite; either you have a quote or you're lying.

you call it banter, I call it accusation, and the casual attitude you have about accusations, I have about logically destroying casual accusations. I'm not sure how you label your countless lies (fibs?) but I'll destroy those with a smile as well. that's too bad, because I never blamed NSO for that. You really lack critical thinking skills. that's nice, I never even brought that point up. and also complained as if it weren't up to him, when he thought it was up to him. in light of his own thoughts, he was hypocritical. that's true, and I never argued against that.

same principle as a gun. I'd rather have one than not need one. ...

/facepalm my argument isn't about the delay itself. my argument is that Ivan at some point thought, "Hey, I could let RIA delay the war, or I could have them rush the terms to me. Let's allow them to delay it, but then try and make them look bad as if they did not offer me the choice to rush it." yes, these options weren't real, but they were the options he thought he had, and he used them in a cheap and contradictory way. all the other stuff is beside the point, and dragging it back in repeatedly doesn't do anything to make it more relevant. Ivan Thought he had the option or rushing it, and Ivan decided not to use that option, but to complain as f he didn't have the option he thought he had. edit: and I challenged his 'banter' with logic, which you then took issue with. once again, the issue here isn't what options Ivan had, but the ones he thought he had, and how shady he acted when he thought he had those options.

not forced, but agreed to it. why does this matter? because in the same breath he complained as if he didn't have a choice. that's what this discussion is about. I pointed this out about his one post, and Tygaland challenged my point, hence all this.

I ignored the charter because: 1. this discussion isn't about whether delta was justified in offering to rush the terms. I am and have been from the beginning, discussing the specific fallacies of that post which Ivan made. 2.the charter was quoted AFTER Ivan was offered a rushing of the terms, and instead chose not to rush. Therefore the charter can't be considered a factor in that post which Ivan made. also, good job inventing more things delta never did. Delta didn't inform Ivan of the vote "requirement." He explicitly said he could rush it himself, or if Ivan was not in a hurry, he could put the terms to a vote. This meant that it was Ivan's choice whether terms were rushed or voted on. Delta had the choice, Delta chose to give the choice to Ivan, Ivan made the choice, then Ivan complained as if he hadn't been given a choice. Too bad your version doesn't jive with the actual posts in the previous pages. Maybe you should read them; I guess the reason you don't use quotes is because they'd disprove your argument? In any case, you have no way of knowing that Delta would not have actually tried to rush the terms in spite of the charter. The charter wasn't a factor anyway, and Delta wasn't acting as if he had to put it to vote. He stated the alliance was democratic, as a reason for delaying, but also EXPLICITLY STATED that he did not mind rushing. I've quoted it twice and you've quoted what to support all your claims? Should I quote it again or do you think you can manage to click the previous page button and read one of the numerous kindergarten-readable point by point walkthroughs I typed just for you? Maybe I need to include apple juice and graham crackers? Maybe a flannelgraph? ok, where are you getting this idea from, that Ivan did not cause the delay, when before the charter EVER came into discussion, Ivan EXPLICITLY SAID, don't rush, do what you have to do? Delta, *NEVER* said we had to vote, he said, we Can vote, or we Can rush it. Only After Ivan Said Not To Rush, did the charter even come up. is this getting through? of course he didn't demand RIA go to vote. He was offered the choice, and Decided to let RIA go to a vote. then After that, someone Else brought up the charter. Delta never mentioned voting as a *requirement*, only as an *option.* I've backed up my posts with quotes. You claim to know the facts, quote them. Any further refusal to use quotes on your part is as good as conceding my point, because I've asked you numerous times, and I've quoted direct contradictions to your points, numerous times, which you then completely ignore. Please, produce a quote of Delta saying 'We have to vote.' here, I'll give you an example of how to quote to back up your statements: here we have delta explicitly giving Ivan the option to rush. after that, Ivan decided to allow the vote. I can quote that too if necessary, I've done it a few times already (facts have no effect on these creatures!). and for those of you reading all this wondering where I'm going, I'm not discussing whether delta was right to offer a rush that wasn't allowed in the charter. I'm simply discussing that Ivan was given the option to rush, Declined that option offered to him by Delta, consented to RIA voting on the terms -and then- complained as if it was a scheme that he wasn't given a choice and we were 'stalling.'

yes, but neither delta nor Ivan brought that up, and I'm pretty sure if Ivan was aware of it he would have mentioned it and made light of how delta was offering to rush without legal basis.

lol. ok, all you have to do to prove me wrong, is post a quote of delta saying "we have to vote" or the equivalent. you have stated repeatedly that delta said it, but not quoted him saying it. So, where did he say that?

enough torturous logic failures today, mister supreme chancellor. go have a rest. you could say delta's at fault for not taking the rules of RIA into account... but that's beside the point of my discussion of mister supreme chancellor over there. the point of my discussion with him is that, Ivan thought delta had the authority to offer the choice of a rushed terms for war. Delta offered that as an option. Then Ivan said, 'no go ahead and vote,' and also, 'I bet you are trying to stall,' which completely contradicts the fact that delta offered to rush.

he does if someone gives him that option; and in this context he had no reason to think delta didn't have that authority. it was Ivan's, because delta gave it to him. that delta said he HAD to take a vote. are you high? he chose to give Ivan the choice.Ivan then chose to allow the vote. then Ivan complained as if he did not have that choice. then you failed to compute the above and probably 5 times now stated that delta did not give Ivan a choice. not impressive mister supreme chancellor.

false. delta said he could either rush, or vote, depending on Ivan's preference. here, as has been readily available to you the whole time, and have been pointed out by me already several times, are the exact quotes upon which I base my conclusions: see? delta said in effect "we don't have to vote" and Ivan said in effect "go ahead and vote." and then Ivan !@#$%*ed as if delta had said he had to vote. which he never did say, but you continually insist he did say. welcome to reality, I'm getting tired of pointing out the obvious here. I mentioned you in reference to falsehoods, such as the ones, intentional or not, you posted even in this post. now for your own sake please read this post as many times as necessary to figure out Delta never said 'we HAVE to vote' but gave Ivan the option of rushing the process.

twinkies = disguised yellow uranium cakes?

the past is not a parallel univerese. as for accusations, those were from Ivan.

this isn't about what is happening now; it's about accusations and falsehoods by Ivan and you. next time read the context before you state what people said in it... especially if you're then going to accuse others of not reading it. it's a tangent, yes, but one of your own making.

you can't assume from what he said that he intended that. so all your 'delta said we had to vote' and Ivan's 'delta r trying to stall' is fiction. the only thing that can disprove my comments is a quote of delta saying, at that point in time, 'we have to vote.'

then again, we're the RIA.

why not use a quote? your post remembers me another children who couldn't read and talking about delta said things delta didn't say. so, either you have a quote of delta saying that or your post is a lie. maybe even a popular myth if we get one more person saying that...

this thread is too cozy. I demand more malice and inappropriate rage. Only then can you defeat me!

a door he left open... possibly only so he could say delta left it open? no, delta said: emphasis mine. then Ivan said: which equates to him consenting to a delay when offered a rush, while in the same breath accusing RIA of trying to delay (why then would delta offer a rush if he were trying to delay? my original point) and complaining about something he was offered a choice about. poorly executed spin, nothing more. where did delta say RIA Had to vote? that's what the fallacy of Ivan's post hinges on; he offered to give Ivan the terms as soon as he wanted them, and Ivan implied that delta was trying to delay, an implication which I then utterly disemboweled, poking the innards about with a stick for the benefit of all onlooking. Ivan chose to allow a delay and then ribbed delta as if he had given him no choice. That's where the implied victimization comes in. and Again, since there was a choice given, it's not dirty work, but keep saying that and proving my point. dirty work implies a victim, and in this case there can be none. Ivan left the door open. maybe he's doing delta's 'dirty work?' in delta's post which Ivan responded to, that option was presented to NSO. Delta: "I can come up with them myself if there's a rush" Ivan: "I am in no rush .... Do whatever you feel like you need to do..." when someone says they'll fight you anytime, anywhere, you don't then draw the conclusion that because anytime includes a later time they are trying to 'cop out' and delay... unless you're, well, an untalented politician, searching frantically for a way to make them look weak, with no sense of how weak this makes you look. also, I expect more reading comprehension from the leader of an alliance. edit: missed a spot