[Discussion] Xuenay

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-07 11:36am

Exhibit A for the prosecution:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=95600

Notice how he promises to concede if so much as a single piece of evidence is raised against his position: "I'm entirely willing to retract my claims, once somebody shows actual studies that indicate how religion is bad". Of course, he does not. And in fact, if you read through the entire thread, his dishonesty becomes rather clear; he keeps bringing up the "Stalinism = Atheism" canard, over and over and over, even after conceding that this line of reasoning has holes in it. He's either a complete idiot or a troll. What's your verdict?

Post by **Edi** » 2006-08-07 06:08pm

Ban. We don't need that fucktard here. He's even ignoring people who actually practice the same religion he does but who do not let him get away with his bullshit.

Edi

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-08-07 07:58pm

Troll or moron, I see no difference.

A gleeful contempt for the debating rules, especially DR 5.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-08-07 08:35pm

I Am Not Impressed.

Just another mewling fucktard of a troll - ban him.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-08-07 08:49pm

This guy slipped in below my radar, and I normally let into such . . . stellar examples of the religious fundamentalist species with unholy glee. Entirely not worth more than casual consideration.

Banninate.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-08-07 08:52pm

Heh. My visit to the Senate today was out of curiosity, almost an instinct, that Xuenay's activities might come up for discussion.

I put in two posts on that thread while observing the general degeneration of the level of discourse. It's clear that Mr. Xuenay's preferred debate tactic is the Wall of Ignorance.

He's worn out his novelty value and his welcome. Get rid of him.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-08-09 04:02am

normally I hate to support bannign someone as it would seem that we are weak and incapable of providing discourse and dealing with ppposing veiwpoints, even if they are skewed. However one can not talk and rationally argue with someone who already has made up their mind, and only percieves what they want to hear. It's like the tourists at work, when we told them it would be 45 minutes before hot food would be redy they heard it as 5 mins, and porceeded to get angry when we couldn't do the impossible.

or as the song from the early seventies go you can't talk to a man with a shotgun is his hand.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-08-09 06:40pm

While I was looking forward to kicking his ass on the topic of a Singularity this weekend when I had time, I suspect I won't have it not.

Title. Sometimes a really good drubbing is needed to get someone going first.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-08-09 08:44pm

I'd suggest you get your kicks in while you've still got the chance. Mr. Xuenay is not long for this board.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2006-08-09 10:57pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:normally I hate to support bannign someone as it would seem that we are weak and incapable of providing discourse and dealing with ppposing veiwpoints, even if they are skewed. However one can not talk and rationally argue with someone who already has made up their mind, and only percieves what they want to hear. It's like the tourists at work, when we told them it would be 45 minutes before hot food would be redy they heard it as 5 mins, and porceeded to get angry when we couldn't do the impossible.

or as the song from the early seventies go you can't talk to a man with a shotgun is his hand.

There's not much you can do about the syndrome of people claiming that we ban people simply for disagreeing with us. We already publicize the names and histories of every person that we ban, so we don't hide the facts unlike the vast majority of forums out there. And we've banned liberals and atheists before, for similar offenses.

The fact that he'll actually admit that he's using a flawed argument and then continue to use it again anyway is pretty damning.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-08-10 12:31am

yeah I know, people will lie from the tower of their personal point of view, reguardless how different from reality it is.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2006-08-11 02:47am

Who is on noose duty?
I wouldnt ask to ban him, if it were not for him being so evasive and the WofI, but thats par for the course with his ilk I guess.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-08-11 08:57am

Somehow I don't think he's even going to make it to the Senate's gallows if he keeps that up. But ban none the less.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-08-11 11:50am

Some folks just can't learn to back down and while it is certainly amusing to beat on the wall for a bit it serves no real purpose to continue to do so; get rid of the fool.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-15 09:23am

This actually wasn't a ban poll, and Xuenay slunk away after it was posted, so I suppose that means he's won a reprieve for now. But this is, of course, on his record.