Weird Realism

[sundog]

Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bantham

I find it quite ironic that those that expend so much negative energy stifling the opinion of others with oppressive slandering are so seemingly passionate over claiming censorship when their brutish tactics are questioned.

Give me a break. I stifle the opinions of no one. I have no means of doing so. Nor would I want to. I merely express my own. Your accusation of slander is one I do not recognize. And you have merely thrown it at me, not pointing to what exactly I've said that you consider slanderous.

slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report

Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bantham

This is not about censorship and you appear to have ignored my previous statements regarding the situation, but why should I be surprised when you have proven to be deaf to the words of others when not resonating with your own.

I have not ignored your statements. I merely have the temerity of disagreeing with you. But perhaps that is considered "slanderous" coming from me?

In any case, this conversation seems to be going nowhere. I'll be happy to bury it. I've said what I felt needed saying. It's very generous of you to allow me to do so.

[Dr. Bantham]

Quote Originally Posted by sundog

Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bantham I find it quite ironic that those that expend so much negative energy stifling the opinion of others with oppressive slandering are so seemingly passionate over claiming censorship when their brutish tactics are questioned. Give me a break. I stifle the opinions of no one. I have no means of doing so. Nor would I want to. I merely express my own. Your accusation of slander is one I do not recognize. And you have merely thrown it at me, not pointing to what exactly I've said that you consider slanderous. slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report

1. I have given you several breaks. This is not the first thread where your actions have come to question the boundaries of reasonable conduct.
2. Several members have complained and/or indicated that they participate less within the forums because of the offensive tactics of others. And no, these complaints have never been from the members that you have directly attacked.
3. For the third time, I am not going to waste my time sifting through threads to produce examples which would no doubt only elicit more argumentative retorts on your part. Regardless, I have only discussed how to handle future situations and never once indicated that past activity of any members would be the basis for any retroactive judgement.

Quote Originally Posted by sundog

Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bantham This is not about censorship and you appear to have ignored my previous statements regarding the situation, but why should I be surprised when you have proven to be deaf to the words of others when not resonating with your own. I have not ignored your statements. I merely have the temerity of disagreeing with you. But perhaps that is considered "slanderous" coming from me?

No, that is not the word I would use. Referencing my trusty dictionary, the word I would choose instead is annoying.

Quote Originally Posted by sundog

In any case, this conversation seems to be going nowhere. I'll be happy to bury it. I've said what I felt needed saying. It's very generous of you to allow me to do so.

At first glance it appears that we finally agree! Instead, after so many calls for you to stand down, you offer a truce laced with a last jab as the punchline. And you are quite welcome, by the way, though this generosity will no doubt tarnish my reputation as a brutal dictator with a passion for crushing free thought.

[Joel]

Sorry, Malone: I didn't mean to imply that you or any TLO member was basing their views on a negative mood – only that people do come at an issue like suicide from different angles, and it has to be considered an emotive topic rather than a purely intellectual one. Nor was I trying to say that any perspective on such an issue is wrong, just that no perspective should be considered rationally 'correct'. Ligotti's own writings often draw links between a person's outlook and illness or negative life experience – he's acutely aware of the subjectivity of belief.

Meanwhile, Evans has been deprived of discussion of his topic, though perhaps he didn't expect much. His disparagement of S.T. Joshi might well have precipitated a different flame war if other issues had not taken over. And as far as I know, Mr Joshi's cats are not TLO members. They don't have Wi-Fi access in Ulthar.

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

[luciferfell]

So about weird realism...

[sundog]

Quote Originally Posted by Joel

I didn't mean to imply that you or any TLO member was basing their views on a negative mood – only that people do come at an issue like suicide from different angles, and it has to be considered an emotive topic rather than a purely intellectual one. Nor was I trying to say that any perspective on such an issue is wrong, just that no perspective should be considered rationally 'correct'. Ligotti's own writings often draw links between a person's outlook and illness or negative life experience – he's acutely aware of the subjectivity of belief.

True, but thankfully he isn't afraid of identifying certain statements on this issue as "betraying such a crass intellect that it does not deserve a response" (TCATHR p.50). - How many times do I have to quote that before it sinks in? - Nor is he afraid of speaking rather objectively about ethics: "To become formally integrated into a society, one must offer it a blood sacrifice. As David Benatar has alleged in 'Better Never to Have Been', all procreators have red hands, morally and ethically speaking." (TCATHR p.179)

Ligotti just isn't the complete moral relativist that some here wants to make him out to be. Of course, that doesn't mean you have to agree with him.

	TCATHR The Conspiracy Against the Human Race