weambulance said:
So, hydrogonian, to recap what you had to say to me:
A. Everything is subjective, there is no objective reality, my knowledge means nothing and all I am even capable of having is opinions that hold no more weight than anyone else's.
B. I have the emotional maturity of a toddler, and the capacity for logic of a garden snail, because I am so scarred from something that happened 10-12 years ago that I not only could not distinguish between NTP and the stolen valor guy, but I just had to attack NTP for it.
C. Plagiarism is not wrong, and pretending you wrote something you didn't in an attempt to bolster your authority is not actually fraud/lying. We should've waited to see if the shit sandwich he served us tasted good before deciding whether or not all shit sandwiches are bad and should be thrown in the trash.
D. Blah blah moral relativism something or other.
E. The fact that I did not follow NTP's posts, and thus came into this brouhaha with no opinion on him, actually means my objectivity is questionable.
F. This was some kind of lynch mob, where we voted the guy off the island in the heat of the moment. There is some secret mechanism in the forum that sensed a lot of us were questioning his validity, and so the forum automatically banned him. It had nothing to do with Roosh's decision at all.
Did I forget anything?
Sure, you forgot to add my quotes that you attempted to paraphrase and interject your own words into. Thus, making your post not so followable.
Do it or don't do it. It isn't a concern.
Thing is, we disagree from first principles on many things here.
I believe that people with significant knowledge about a subject can assess the validity of someone's claims about that subject.
I would agree on closed and simple subjects like sports. Was he that terrible in regard to gunfighting? I would disagree on larger, more complex subjects like China.
I believe that there is such a thing as objective morality, and that lying is generally wrong. There are exceptions. This case was not one of them
Well, I agree on objective morality as well. But I also disagree that plagiarizing technical information is necessarily a breach of morality to the degree that it is worthy of a ban. I think that the moral issue is more nuanced, at least theoretically in this case. The theory of which would be verified or not in a more tempered evaluation.
I also disagree that this forum, which there are all types of threads that deal with "objectively amoral behavior" runs on a strict sense of objective morality. An idiosyncratic morality, probably. But not objective morality.
I believe that if someone lies their ass off--in this case through blatant plagiarism--it is foolish to ignore that and assume the other stuff they wrote is just fine.
We see different levels of nuance here. Not of differing depths per se, but perhaps plumbing different aspects of the issue. I'm not trying to let him off of the hook because I have an agenda to do so. I don't. I don't have much to gain from him being here, moving forward. I'm concerned about the process that I saw.
I believe that the closer you are to the fight, the harder it is to see the big picture.
That's too convenient in terms if dismissing a view that you disagree with.
Argue my points, but, respectfully, please don't argue my ability to see things to depth as an argument in itself.
As to your challenge, I have two things to say:
1. I have made many posts about firearms, and a number of posts about combat, on this forum. Feel free to browse my posts and compare them to your pal NTP's work. I await your questioning my authenticity with bated breath.
I will. Though, I'm not out to get you and am not going to accuse anyone of anything. The point was rhetorical. Ie: your views of your material is likely subjective, as is his of yours and yours of his. Anyone can claim anything of anyone else. Lack of knowledge, incomplete knowledge, or complimentary knowledge is not a crime.
Using these views as evidence in support of banning is a bad precedent for the forum. That's the point. It's not personal to NTP. Are you now the arbiter of gun fighting knowledge? Sign up on the board. How are we going to know when your better comes along and deems your knowledge too illegitimate? By what he says about you? It sounds like a rough appointment.
This ugly pattern, of internet strangers commenting on and judging toward banning evidence the legitimacy of knowledge in relation to their own, has been continued throughout this process.
No one knows anyone. Anyone can say anything. Meetups don't solve the problem when they are realistic whatsoever. That's the point. The precedent and the tone of the persecution in regard to his legitimacy of claims was the point.
That's my opinion. I don't expect to change yours. We can agree to disagree.
2. I have been working intermittently a large collection of data sheets for the forum about firearms and the practical use thereof since philosophical_recovery's great post on pistol training. If you don't want to mine my posts, you can just wait for me to start putting those articles up.
Cool. I'm into it, sincerely and with no agenda, and look forward to learning from them. Thanks.
I'll bow out of this thread now, assuming that other members want to be respectful and let that happen. Pm me if you want to talk more. I've said my piece on this thread.
