mconlonx

I dunno -- suddenly we were talking veganism and diet in LCF and I thought this would be appropriate...

ZMC888

Are you a complete arse? Total arse or complete arse?

cooker

Urban Dictionary: ad hom

tandempower

Ok, thanks for the info. I still don't think you can ever pinpoint the interests of individuals and why they do or say things they do. Many people in this sub-forum use it as a venue for subtly or blatantly discouraging and criticizing LCF, so the question is whether this is done purely out of personal malice or whether they have some farther-reaching interest in discouraging LCF and other ways of living that reject expensive purchases in favor of lower-cost living that does less to contribute to GDP.

mconlonx

Point taken.

However, I also see "car-light" included in the the forum description. There's also the word "prefer" to consider. Along with an invitation to discuss one's lifestyle. So someone like me could prefer to use alternative transportation, but currently drive a car quite a bit. Someone could be car-lite and discuss their car as part of their lifestyle and still fit within forum guidelines.

All of which does leave room for car-hate and expression of anti-car sentiment, but it also does not rule out car-love and pro-car discussion from the mix...

mconlonx

Low rake is very trendy in India and Bicycle Quarterly right now...

mconlonx

I prefer the term "pedantic interlocutor"...

mconlonx

It has been pointed out to me that this is beyond the scope of what should be considered LCF-appropriate...

tandempower

Because people with views like his are subtly and blatantly ridiculed. What he's expressing is taboo to express here, because all choices are supposed to be equal. He's saying that eating meat and being opposed to LCF are 'backward,' because they are more conscientious ways of living. This is a bit like calling people who like to bicker and get into fist-fights 'backward,' because they can't express disagreements without fighting on some level. Saying that someone is rude and disrespectful for calling killing less civilized than not killing is just nonsense. You might have reasons that it's more ok to kill animals than humans, but everyone respects animal life on SOME level, so it's ridiculous to criticize him for calling it backward. I.e. on some level you agree with him, but you just don't want to admit it because you eat meat.

Do I think all views could be expressed with less hostility and that it would be good to do so? Yes, but do I realistically think that everyone here is going to cooperate in doing so? Hardly. So whens someone says something in a blatant way and even tosses the word, "idiot" around, I don't view it as some horrible assault against the people he's talking about, because they have been much meaner in much more sustained ways.

I-Like-To-Bike

I stand corrected, the Urban Dictionary reference () apparently blesses the repeated use of the stilted phrase "ad hom" as a verb for slinging mud on anyone who disagrees with or takes to task weird assertions, no matter how provocative or silly those claims might be.

tandempower

Pointed out by whom? Would you say that pointing this out constitutes a political move on some level? Welcome to the world of covert BF politics.

Roody

It's called common sense. It's very smart that you're not paying every day for something that you'll only want or need once in a great while. For occasional usage, car share, ride share, rental, or even taxicab can be a much more sensible alternative.

ZMC888

So you are gay?
I thought that was it.

Personally I don't mind. I mean really I consider everyone equal these days. In my country gay marriage is perfectly legal. I have absolutely no objection to the way people live. I mean it's YOUR lifestyle, who would I be to judge and demean someone for their sexuality and the way they choose to live? I mean, someone else's lifestyle? How could anyone be angered and try to attack and insult people simply because they chose to live differently? That would be subhuman wouldn't it?

It's 2016, we've all moved on now, we're really not so closed minded, you can come out of the closet, we are here to support you!

I-Like-To-Bike

Is that world a part of the secretive Global Automotivist Conspiracy?

loky1179

Maybe they get everywhere too fast by driving their cars, and then can't figure out what to do with their free time. Or, maybe they've spent all their money on their cars, and internet forums are the only entertainment that is now affordable. Maybe their mothers didn't show any affection towards them as children, and now you are seeing the results. Maybe they have a really bad rash they can't get rid of, and it is making them permanently crabby.

Just throwing out ideas here . . ..

I-Like-To-Bike

Can ya believe it?

Is there a secret meaning for "pedantic" in the Urban Dictionary or the LCF Screenwriter's Support Group reference library?

tandempower

Denial creates the most effective conspiracies. Sub-conscious/unconscious networking creates norms and social patterns that have the strongest effects and strongest resistance to criticism and change.

Roody

Survival existence seems better than the alternative.

But anyway, I don't think you really mean to say that it's OK for people to do anything they want regarding the environment, do you? For example, you probably don't think it's OK for your neighbor to put a big pile of human waste in his yard, right under your window. But you do think it's OK for him to drive a car that pollutes the air you breathe. So somewhere between those extremes, you would impose restrictions on the amounts and types of air pollution that people are allowed to emit.

Where would you draw the line when it comes to pollution and cars? As cleaner cars become available, do you think people should be required or encouraged to use them instead of the old smoggers? What about zero emission alternatives? Will the day come when people should be required to use electric cars, even if they cost more than gasoline cars?

mconlonx

Ekdog, cooker. I don't think it's at all political or covert, just an effort to rein in LCF discussion to specifically LCF pertinence.

tandempower

I would like to know who was getting my posts deleted. Was it moderators independently, or was someone like Machka prompting it? I don't understand why people are allowed to post something, which I then respond to, and then my post response is deleted but not theirs. It's just so blatantly biased.

Ekdog and cooker are rarely rude, in my experience. Mobile 155, Wolfchild, Machka, and some others who post less frequently are the people who generally resent my views and react against views that conflict with their vision of what is socially normal, realistic, etc. You also hold this POV and thus don't seem to feel like everyone should express their views independently of cultural norms or culturally-defined 'realism.' I.e. you don't want to have neutral discussion forum but one that is policed against views you deem 'unrealistic' ot otherwise marginal.

mconlonx

Well this is slightly over the top.

If you're unfamiliar with what either of the words "pedantic" or "interlocutor" means, you could surely look them up online, but it appears that you are purposely misinterpreting them... and using the term "gay" as some kind of slur.

Shame on you.

PhotoJoe 

MOD NOTE: It's time to let this one cool off.