Should I report this?

The connection of those links with his narrative was pretty implicit, at the least.
 
ughaibu said:
This claim is false. I clicked on all links posted by Aaqucnaona, none was to a resource dedicated to the issue of concern.This too is false. I accused him of failing to support his position. Sticking up a bunch of links, regardless of their content, is not supporting a position.
Click to expand...

Your complaint was that no quote was provided.. Have you now changed your mind?
 
aaqucnaona said:
I think he was really trolling and is conjuring up excuses because you have him cornered.
Click to expand...
Bullshit! On some occasions, the best way to support a claim is by linking to an authoritative source, stating what the relevant content is and how it is relevant. There is no reason to link to more than one site, if that site supports the claim. It should be quite obvious, after a few seconds thought, that a claim cannot be supported by an extensive reading list, alone. Even had I read through all the content that you linked to, how would I know what you considered to be the relevant content? How would I know how you considered it to offer support?
None of that is my responsibility, it is yours, as the proposer of the claim. All of this is piss bleeding obvious and a matter of established internet etiquette. It beggars befuckinglief that I'm being made out to be the bad guy here, including being made out so by some of the staff.
 
ughaibu said:
this is piss bleeding obvious and a matter of established internet etiquette. It beggars befuckinglief that I'm being made out to be the bad guy here, including being made out so by some of the staff.
Click to expand...

Is also a matter of internet etiquette to abuse, constantly ignore requests for counter-arguments, ask stupid questions again and again rather than request an explaination or a quote?

And if this isnt being the fucking bad troll guy:

You must be fucking joking.
Click to expand...

Negative theism is theism. If you make claims about reality for theistic reasons, then you are a theist. And if you're a theist, dont expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Bollocks. You made a claim on this site if you cannot sufuckingport it, then that claim is gone. End of story.
Click to expand...

Hilarious.
Click to expand...

I dont know what is.
 
ughaibu said:
regardless of their content
Click to expand...

They were totally relevent to the content. Each one of the dozen or so links was a source to data or news on genetic determinism of [altruistic] behaviour. Dont try to put the blame for your laziness on me.
 
ughaibu said:
Bullshit! On some occasions, the best way to support a claim is by linking to an authoritative source, stating what the relevant content is and how it is relevant. There is no reason to link to more than one site, if that site supports the claim.
Click to expand...
You asked for more material and aaq provided it. That you failed to click on it is your concern, not aaq's.


Even had I read through all the content that you linked to, how would I know what you considered to be the relevant content? How would I know how you considered it to offer support?
Click to expand...
Changed your mind again?

This is what you said in a previous post:

ughaibu said:
I clicked on all links posted by Aaqucnaona, none was to a resource dedicated to the issue of concern.
Click to expand...
So either you clicked on it or didn't. You have already contradicted yourself. You claimed earlier to have clicked and "none was to a resource dedicated to the issue of concern". Now you claim you hadn't read it.

So which is it?

None of that is my responsibility, it is yours, as the proposer of the claim. All of this is piss bleeding obvious and a matter of established internet etiquette. It beggars befuckinglief that I'm being made out to be the bad guy here, including being made out so by some of the staff.
Click to expand...
The links were provided as proof. It is your responsibility to click and read. Not anyone else's.

And I can assure you, speaking like a hick will not enamour you to the "staff". Especially when you keep contradicting yourself and trolling as you do it..
 
ughaibu said:
Bullshit! On some occasions, the best way to support a claim is by linking to an authoritative source, stating what the relevant content is and how it is relevant. There is no reason to link to more than one site, if that site supports the claim. It should be quite obvious, after a few seconds thought, that a claim cannot be supported by an extensive reading list, alone. Even had I read through all the content that you linked to, how would I know what you considered to be the relevant content? How would I know how you considered it to offer support?
Click to expand...
No, actually...I generally have no problem figuring out what part of an article someone wanted me to pay attention to.
I generally try to find more than one source to support my argument...
Sometimes you have to read the entire article to get the gist...
And... forum etiquette around here allows merely posting a link and commenting.
I tend to quote, but not always.

Too, extensive c&p gets into copyright-violations land.

Are you telling us you are unable to rapidly skim an article for relevant content?
 
uqhaibu, I took a look at the thread, just out of curiosity. You are right in your contentions above, although I think most of the ambiguity could have been resolved much earlier on by emphacizing to Aaqucnaona that your objections had to do with the difference between a behaviour having arisen as a result of evolution, and its being "determined" by genetics. Behaviour in many of the animals which Aaq's links dealt with probably are genetically determined - the bee has no choice but to dance - but in humans, culture has decoupled genetics and behaviour. We do have a choice. And there is some evidence that some other animals are capable of making "informed decisions" about their behaviours based on, among other things, risk/benefit analyses. Primates for sure, and some other social mammals as well.

Rich
 
Bells said:
You have already contradicted yourself. You claimed earlier to have clicked and "none was to a resource dedicated to the issue of concern". Now you claim you hadn't read it.
Click to expand...
Like fuck. Read what I wrote again, see if you can get your head around it and respond without misrepresenting me.
 
@Ughaibu

Originally Posted by RichW9090
uqhaibu, I took a look at the thread, just out of curiosity. You are right in your contentions above. . . .
Click to expand...

ughaibu said:
Thank you. It really is quite clear, to anybody who actually reads what is written.
Click to expand...

How convenient that you missed the next part of the quote by Rich:

Originally Posted by RichW9090
...although I think most of the ambiguity could have been resolved much earlier on by emphacizing to Aaqucnaona that your objections had to do with the difference between a behaviour having arisen as a result of evolution, and its being "determined" by genetics.
Click to expand...

He wasnt supporting you, he was shifting the blame from your trolling and lazyness to your stupidity and short sightedness in arguments.

ughaibu said:
Like fuck. Read what I wrote again, see if you can get your head around it and respond without misrepresenting me.
Click to expand...

This is quite nice behaviour from someone claiming not to be a troll. If you were really serious and sincere, you would have answered all his arguments and you would have sorted out the question rather than restart the debate all over again, which was exactly the tactic you used while trolling on the 'know evil' thread.

Please stop being a troll, admit your were in the wrong and start making useful contributions to this forum. Thats all I ask.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top