Having fun at a bar, DT style

[pg1067]

 

[Metro]

What DT song do you think would get the most people on the dance floor? And don’t say Dance of Eternity.

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

What DT song do you think would get the most people on the dance floor? And don’t say Dance of Eternity.

I've nailed Surrounded at karaoke before, so that's got my vote

[Lonk]

What DT song do you think would get the most people on the dance floor? And don’t say Dance of Eternity.

Prophets of War

[Adami]

What DT song do you think would get the most people on the dance floor? And don’t say Dance of Eternity.

Good song. Need something at least mostly in 4/4, uptempo, and with some energy.

Maybe Prophets of War? I Walk Beside You?

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

What DT song do you think would get the most people on the dance floor? And don’t say Dance of Eternity.

Good song. Need something at least mostly in 4/4, uptempo, and with some energy.

Maybe Prophets of War? I Walk Beside You?

I did IWBY at karaoke once and it did not go over well, would not recommend that one! lmao

[Stadler]

Oh wow

Haha, I know.  It's cute, like it's my first day on the inter webs. 

[Skeever]

You're seemingly missing the point with my argument. It's not about sexism, it's not about supporting an agenda, or providing a fertile ground for inadvisable behavior.  It's very straightforward: you don't get to make these determinations for someone else.  It's not your call to tell another person what their intent is.  Offer the observation if you must, but that's where it has to end.

Think this one is worth taking a step back on, my man. Making a determination about a woman (calling her a "slut") for some reason ("she's not talking to me", "she's dressed a certain way", "she left for Dream Theater") is not OK. You're getting upset about someone making determinations about you, which is the very act that you are for some reason defending.

I know the op of this thread and I'm pretty sure that he doesn't really view women that way. I think we all get that times change and people shouldn't have there words dangled over them indefinitely. But there's really no need to go a step further and defend those words themselves.

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

You're seemingly missing the point with my argument. It's not about sexism, it's not about supporting an agenda, or providing a fertile ground for inadvisable behavior.  It's very straightforward: you don't get to make these determinations for someone else.  It's not your call to tell another person what their intent is.  Offer the observation if you must, but that's where it has to end.

Think this one is worth taking a step back on, my man. Making a determination about a woman (calling her a "slut") for some reason ("she's not talking to me", "she's dressed a certain way", "she left for Dream Theater") is not OK. You're getting upset about someone making determinations about you, which is the very act that you are for some reason defending.

I know the op of this thread and I'm pretty sure that he doesn't really view women that way. I think we all get that times change and people shouldn't have there words dangled over them indefinitely. But there's really no need to go a step further and defend those words themselves.

brilliant summation here. really couldn't have put it better myself and i think with this thought i'll be seeing myself out of this thread. see y'all in other threads!

[Stadler]

i'm definitely not interested in a political argument. you should probably leave that in the proper forums (i think it's referred to p/r here but i also know you need to ask for permission so maybe you need to do that). but this isn't political. it's wrong to treat someone or a group of people with offensive language. again, it's very simple, and pretending this is a complex issue is merely purposely looking to muddy it so you (rhetorical you, not you specifically) can act under its cover

Of course it's wrong, at least for me.  But it's just not up to you (or me) to decide what that line is for everyone else. It actually can be complex, when you're dealing with other people's feelings.   

But look at your post:  you're telling me where to post.  You're telling me whether this is a political argument or not (it most certainly does have a political component).  You're telling me what I should view as "right" or "wrong".  You're telling me how I should view this as simple, not complex.  You're telling me that I'm acting purposefully.  You're telling me I'm muddying the waters for specific intent.  You're telling me I'm purposefully looking to act in a certain way.   YOU DO NOT GET TO TELL ME WHAT MY INTENT IS, or what my purpose is, and I can say this because you are patently wrong about most of what you're telling me is true. 

You're seemingly missing the point with my argument. It's not about sexism, it's not about supporting an agenda, or providing a fertile ground for inadvisable behavior.  It's very straightforward: you don't get to make these determinations for someone else.  It's not your call to tell another person what their intent is.  Offer the observation if you must, but that's where it has to end.

i'm not engaging with you anymore my guy. your need to have the last say is definitely amusing to witness though. you're even gonna respond to this i bet, lol. have a great day! 

And I'm going to, if only to point out the fourth grade psychology and the seemingly fake cameraderie of the heart emoji.  I suppose you think you're playing chess with the "I lose if I respond and I lose if I don't" paradoxy.   I will note however, that you did not in any way respond with any substance, just more ad hominem, and that is telling.

hey stadler, i wasn't gonna respond because it's becoming clear to me that we won't agree on this topic - but in light of your accusations of "ad hominem", something which i find pretty insulting considering i didn't actually do any ad hominem attacks, i decided to step away for a little while and cool off.

then - it hit me! maybe he doesn't know what ad hominem means! that wouldn't be his fault for using it incorrectly and in such an insulting manner, so i have decided to take the high road so to speak and try to offer some help

here is a link to the Texas State definition https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

Presumably, you thought my observation of you enjoying to have the last word was somehow an "ad hominem" attack. While i can definitely understand why you may have thought this, let me help clarify:

Simply pointing out behavior is not an attack, it is merely an observation. Since joining these boards about a month ago i have, on multiple occasions, noted that you enjoy having the final word. Me merely pointing that out was not "irrelevantly attacking you instead of addressing the point" I was making it clear that I was disengaging from the discussion. You could even say i was "giving it to you". I no longer wished to argue. On my way out of the discussion I merely observed what I have so many times before: that you love having the last say, and would likely do it in this case (i was proven right pretty quickly). Sorry to say that observations are not "attacks" and just because you don't like said observation doesn't mean you get to call it an attack. 



Just in case it wasn't clear, here are some more examples


NOT AD HOMINEM ATTACKS
- Stadler has an avatar of a muppet
- Stadler seems to enjoy having the last say in discussions
- Stadler is a father

AD HOMINEM ATTACKS (and to be clear, i am merely writing these out for explanation/examples sake: these thoughts and intentions are not serious):
- Stadler is a member of the silent generation, therefore his opinions on things taking place in this century are invalid
- Stadler clearly doesn't understand logistical nuance in discussion, and therefore his arguments hold less weight
- Stadler is a white man of privilege, and therefore his opinions about woman are mostly irrelevant or invalid


hope this helps clear things up for you! have a good one!

I'm good with my statements, and I stand behind them.   I know what the words mean, and it applies to your posts.  The point of using the term "ad hominem" was to highlight that you have continually tried to undermine my point without actually having to engage with it.  You have EXPLICITLY SAID you won't engage (on the faulty premise that "no one's mind will be changed", as if that's the only reason to debate important issues) and then proceeded to continually make your responses about me and my articulation, about what I know, about what my intent is, etcetera.

Unless and until you actually respond to the issue at hand - the supposed sexism of this thread, and the resulting efforts to control what others can and can't say on a forum you do not control and has been monitored appropriately - I'm comfortable with my assessment and the appropriateness of the words I chose.

But I'm here all day. I can keep doing this.

[Stadler]

You're seemingly missing the point with my argument. It's not about sexism, it's not about supporting an agenda, or providing a fertile ground for inadvisable behavior.  It's very straightforward: you don't get to make these determinations for someone else.  It's not your call to tell another person what their intent is.  Offer the observation if you must, but that's where it has to end.

Think this one is worth taking a step back on, my man. Making a determination about a woman (calling her a "slut") for some reason ("she's not talking to me", "she's dressed a certain way", "she left for Dream Theater") is not OK. You're getting upset about someone making determinations about you, which is the very act that you are for some reason defending.

I know the op of this thread and I'm pretty sure that he doesn't really view women that way. I think we all get that times change and people shouldn't have there words dangled over them indefinitely. But there's really no need to go a step further and defend those words themselves.

Not defending those words nor am I saying it's okay.  In fact, I believe I said it was not:

Of course it's wrong, at least for me.

What I'm clearly objecting to is coming in, 13 years after the fact, and, even after TWO mods - who have shown a history of being measured and prudent in their handling of sensitive issues - have weighted in decisively on the matter, and repeatedly judging others by association for their participation in a thread with questionable material (and I quote: " some people here really hate women a lot and it shows"). 

Nothing I've said defends the underlying behavior or condones actual sexism.  That it exists, though, doesn't give carte blanche to those who have issue with it.  My objection, and the basis of almost all of my posts in this thread, was the forced judgementalism that seemed to imply that we're all guilty if we don't go along with the mob mentality and agree with the accusations against character.  To your point, you KNOW the OP and have some insight, perhaps, into his intent.  I don't see any of that objectivity with statements like that quoted above.  And I'd have left this thread long ago if the discussion didn't continue down that path. I've repeatedly suggested that it is likely more productive that it be kept to the issue at hand - the actual or alleged sexism - and not on the forced implications of what each response might mean, but that was ignored, even down to questioning my intelligence.  We're apparently just supposed to shut the f--- up and agree with the accusations or be complicit.

[Metro]

Filibuster.

[ProgMasterMind92]

What DT song do you think would get the most people on the dance floor? And don’t say Dance of Eternity.

prophets of war until they realize it's not actually muse... and then we'd have a CAVALCADE OF STUPID FUCKIN' SKANKS WITH PLEBEIAN TASTES departing...

am i doing it right because if not i'm gonna feel like tim robinson in the itysl haunted house sketch... can we or can we not degrade women we know nothing about

[DragonAttack]

Well, hopefully soon you and 808 will exit through the doors you recently entered.

This has been hilarious! 

btw....Stadler, did you know there is a P/R section?  You should ask permission to join. 

[Metro]

The DTF Class of 2023 has been quite disappointing so far 

[TAC]

 

[hefdaddy42]

This misbegotten thread should never have been resurrected in the first place.  Goodbye and good riddance.