"@ ss and jy: I'm not some moral compass whom all must pass, but there's a certain amount of shitty behavior that someone can see without saying anything. Likewise JY, I don't unconditionally hate abuse, I think insults and hard truths are warranted when someone has been as unpleasant as you guys."

OK! that's good. i appreciate that. you disagree with what i have to say, and the manner in which i am saying it.

thus you have insulted me.

i disagreed with what MM said, and also the manner in which he said it.

thus i insulted him

SS this isn't about thick skin! I'm only saying the uncomfortable truths about you as a defective human being because your behavior is so disgusting and frustrating. Really what it comes down to is you shouldnt be such a shithead to people for no reason. If it makes you feel better be a shithead to me, deal with whatever issues you have by showing that you have thicker skin than me. "Good for you man". At least i've (albeit reasonably) called you (truthful) insults. There's not even a semi-reasonably justification for a lot of your interactions, and that's fucked up.

ok that was more than one post i'm a bad liar :'(

ah, see you keep with it. i like it, you may have some balls after all. albeit small, but good for you--again one last time. i offered to drop it on page two, if MM stopped addressing me...he did not...maybe you have a thing for him and you want him to read you a bedtime story---crawl in a hole ---mute me--otherwise i'l continue our dance

@_Socrates Dissatisfied. Thanks. OK I have received an email from Hellenic Riot. WebDiplomacy does not "ban by request" . My account here will not be closed in response to my request if I understand his email correctly. Which is OK with me. I shall not discuss the emails between myself and the Mods in any more detail than that.

@ssorenn

i do have to admit you have a strong affection for male genitals

Ssorenn, I don't mean to be causing you such discomfort. I know the truth hurts when it's difficult. Someone refusing to stop addressing you doesn't give you free license to be a wanker.

jy: have you heard of tu quoque? have you heard of false equivocation? two fallacies you've used.

There's a reasonable standard of unpleasantness that (conceivably) justifies insults. There is no such standard that justifies your conduct.

@MM. Fair enough!

ummm, if someone continues to address me, i can rebut anyway i like---dont need your approval

i think there's a bedtime story coming for SD

Self serving selective version of events ssorenn, but no surprise there.
Your "offer" was a response to my request that you withdraw the targeted MF abuse. Note, I initiated, you responded. Note I did not ask for the apology to which I think I am entitled from you, just a withdrawal.
You responded, not initiated, with you silly "offer", and then made a point of repeating your abuse, a malicious act with deliberate intent, imho.
So when you make an allegation about someone scrambling for the moral high ground in this squabble.... Be aware that that observers of this squabble will decide for themselves just who is doing the scrambling to supposed moral high ground. Please note I repeatedly acknowledge my weaknesses and flaws, inconsistencies and failings.

ss. Let's differentiate between two uses of the word "can". I'm sure you'll get it because even shit for brains can get it.

Can, in the sense you are using it, indicates the (perhaps logical) possibility of the action. You can, for instance continue acting like a piece of shit. You can, for instance, not try to understand what makes you a defective moral agent.

In language we also often use the word can in a more restrictive sense. I could say you can't rebut in anyway you like. If you asked me why, I wouldn't say it was logically impossible, but because you can't do it without being an asshole, or rather, without failing as a (supposed) moral agent. Because it is wrong.

In this way we can, incidentally, see how this more restrictive usage, can have an explanatory qualifier added to it, and thereby retain the same meaning as in the first case. It is not possible - you can't, rebut anyway you like, without being an asshole.

@SD

tu quoque only applies if i'm trying to justify my argument by pointing out your own hypocrisy. I am not, i merely addressing your own inconsistencies.

false equivocation: so i'm equivocating what exactly? how i receive insults vs how i receive pretentiousness? that's entirely subjective and entire open to equivocation.

"There's a reasonable standard of unpleasantness that (conceivably) justifies insults. There is no such standard that justifies your conduct."

according to your set values. that is fine if you feel that way, but i've been raised and born into a life that's pushed me down a different path.

MM is unwilling to recognize a different view of the world, whereas i have on several occasions admitted a purely civil society could be for the best.

@MajorMitchell

"Please note I repeatedly acknowledge my weaknesses and flaws, inconsistencies and failings."

you accept that you are not perfect by your own standards, but you have never even considered that your standards are imperfect.

therein lies 50% of my problem with you (though the other half is more trivial tbf)

I agree with this thread op, and find it strange that people are so offended that op is offended by a word.

@Fluminator

if he wants people to stop using this term so he doesn't have to be offended, i can definitely consider that

if he wants people to stop using this term because this term is bad, i have some contention with that

Socrates Dissatisfied, lol, do you think that using valid philosophical concepts can counter things like "piss off shit for brains" with blighters displaying the intellectual sophistication that we are from our "significantly less than dynamic duo" ? Lol. Ok incoming emails see you later

@ jy, when you pointed out my ostensible inconsistency that functioned as a tu quoque.

you equivocated between the behavior that preceded my "abuse", and the behavior that preceded your abuse.

Not just my set of values. Regardless of how you were raised, there are objective standards of moral conduct. Maybe you disagree on that, but that's not so strange to think. You may *think* that something is right or wrong - you may have your own set of values. That doesn't change the fact that there is an objective moral standard that you are failing.

If that term is known to offend a lot of people, doesn't that make it objectively bad then? What's the difference?

@SD

"@ jy, when you pointed out my ostensible inconsistency that functioned as a tu quoque."

tu quoque: "or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)."

notice that this does not in fact mean you are NOT acting inconsistently, rather your inconsistency has NO BEARING on the argument.

this is true.

i did not say i was right, because you're a hypocrite.

"you equivocated between the behavior that preceded my "abuse", and the behavior that preceded your abuse."

yes... you responded belligerently to ssorenn rambling on and being an ass, i responded belligerently to MM defending his ideology and being pretentious.

it's apple and oranges whether an ass or a pretentious man is worse.

"Not just my set of values."

so?

"Regardless of how you were raised, there are objective standards of moral conduct."

LITERALLY no there are not.

"Maybe you disagree on that, but that's not so strange to think. You may *think* that something is right or wrong - you may have your own set of values. That doesn't change the fact that there is an objective moral standard that you are failing."

this is the argument that religions have made for centuries. "You may *think* that God is real or not - you may have your own set of beliefs. That doesn't change the fact that there is an objective god that you are failing.

it is not a fact without evidence.

it is an opinion. your opinion. his opinion.

I'm don't even like political correctness or censorship in most cases. I just don't see any positive use in the word.

@Fluminator

objective is without human interpretation. people interpreting the phrase as bad is the definition of subjectivity.

@Fluminator

on a social level? it's a rite of passage for many kids. cussing with the older kids, growing up. They were raised differently, and in a way many consider to be worse.

i don't make that distinction

Incorrect, yet again sweetypie James
I KNOW I am weak, inconsistent, have many flaws and failings etc when "judged" by community standards and by rational moral codes, not by "my standards". I've got an ego, and if we consult that, then I'm a bloody champion, lol, didn't you know that ?

It's objectively true that a lot of people find it offensive.

Really sad the mods let this kind of harassment at players go on for so long without even a warning.

@MajorMitchell
"Incorrect, yet again sweetypie James"

yes, embrace the gutter :P

"I KNOW I am weak, inconsistent, have many flaws and failings etc when "judged" by community standards and by rational moral codes, not by "my standards"."

if they aren't your standards, then how do you KNOW they're truly flaws? Why do you accept them? Why embrace the codes? from what i've read, i see a deep bias towards some preordained morality that you seem to accept.

"I've got an ego, and if we consult that, then I'm a bloody champion, lol, didn't you know that ?"

nah bro, but you do have my win percentage beat so props to that

@Fluminator

oh, well that's obvious. however

objectively universally perceived as bad =/= objectively bad

Alright, quickly jy, even though I feel this is all beyond you:

you did not need to say that you were right because i was a hypocrite, there just needs to be the intent to discredit the validity of my argument. it doesn't even say conscious intent.

being an ass v being pretentious are likely comparable, and they both probably have different norms of conduct relating to appropriate responses.

ok, so you think that murder is not objectively wrong? got it. or, sadistic cruel murder just done for one's pleasure? that's not objectively wrong. I wish I was surprised, but given your conduct it makes sense that you would think that.

Okay, so you've made a fallacy again, but that's fine. There is also some false equivocation here, but that's fine. Still, with god as well, whether or not you think god is real or not doesn't change the fact whether there is a god or not.

There can be facts without evidence too. We may not know the facts without evidence, but that's not to say there are no facts.

As it is there is plenty of evidence for certain moral facts. I can recommend you a ton of books if you want to learn.