Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2031-2035 (10-14 October 2011)
stoutfiles:
--- Quote from: Akima on 13 Oct 2011, 22:47 ---
--- Quote from: stoutfiles on 13 Oct 2011, 20:52 ---I'm sorry you were confused about what I said.
--- End quote ---
Nice non-apology-apology :-). I am not the slightest bit confused about what you said:
--- End quote ---
Nice backhanded compliment to my obvious non-apology apology. See, I can link to articles too. It is quite annoying.
You seem to be somewhat confused though, otherwise we wouldn't still be talking about this.
--- Quote from: Akima on 13 Oct 2011, 22:47 ---
--- Quote from: stoutfiles on 13 Oct 2011, 06:14 ---If any of my friends would hit me I would hit them back much harder, then question why I am friends with them. You don't hit people, especially in the head. No excuse. Period.
--- End quote ---
Note particularly: "You don't hit people. No excuse. Period." You did not say "You don't hit friends", but generalised it to "people". Nor did you say "No excuse. Except for self-defence", but simply "No excuse. Period." These are the words you chose to convey your meaning, and for which you are responsible.
--- End quote ---
"You did not say "You don't hit friends", but generalised it to "people"." Do you realize how silly you're being? exaggeration The point was you should not hit people. I do not go around hitting people. However, yes, you are right, there are exceptions, as with all things in life. Saying "You don't hit people, except for 497 possible exceptions" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. I was making the point that I take hitting very seriously. When someone does hit me though, then I will hit back. It changes the situation from a non-confrontational hit to a self-defense hit, which are two different situations.
By the way, I don't know what you're even saying here about 'friends' and 'people' because of "generalised". I also don't know what 'self-defence' is. These are not legitimate words so your statements make no sense. These are the words you chose to convey your meaning, and for which you are responsible. Do you see how annoying/demeaning this is? Please don't do that.
--- Quote from: Akima on 13 Oct 2011, 22:47 ---
--- Quote from: stoutfiles on 13 Oct 2011, 20:52 ---Are you suggesting I should curl in a ball and get hit over and over because I never want to hit someone?
--- End quote ---
I'm not suggesting anything. My original posting on this subject was simply intended to draw attention to the contradiction between "If any of my friends would hit me I would hit them back much harder", an understandable if disproportionate response, and "You don't hit people, especially in the head. No excuse. Period." I take the principle of non-violence seriously as a very difficult one to fit into a violent world, so I took you seriously.
--- End quote ---
There are less aggressive ways to draw attention to statements. If you actually took that principle seriously you would have gone about this another way.
--- Quote from: TinPenguin on 14 Oct 2011, 04:11 ---
--- Quote from: Akima on 14 Oct 2011, 01:15 ---Another strip where Jeph hits facial expressions out of the park
--- End quote ---
You don't hit people's faces out of the park. No excuse.
--- End quote ---
Yes, let's all be dicks. Everyone should make a "no excuse" joke!
stoutfiles:
--- Quote from: purple.platypus on 14 Oct 2011, 01:13 ---I object to the way Stout is using the word "hitting".
It's one of those words that can mean a variety of different things and it seems to me Stout is equivocating between two of them. Any sort of physical collision between two objects can be described as them "hitting". And then there's the sense in which one uses the word to, say, accuse someone of hitting their spouse - when it means something far more specific, an abusive act with the purpose or effect of causing pain. Stout is taking something that only fits the first definition, but using the word in a way designed to provoke the sorts of emotional reaction associated with the second. I'm not saying it is or isn't intentional, but either way, it's not a tactic conducive to keeping the conversation friendly.
--- End quote ---
How so? When Marten got hit there was pain. Correcting someone with a slap is abusive. It's not on par with hitting your spouse, but it still is abusive and painful. It just didn't need to happen. Or, rather, it did based on the majority reaction. I am in the minority on this.
Sorflakne:
All you have to do is /who 'char's name' and you can find them wherever they are without having to go anywhere.
StevenC:
Guys, it's called slapstick. The smack to the back of the head is one of the oldest things in the book. But this wouldn't be the QC forum if not everything would be over analyzed by some. Don't change, it's entertaining.
The poll: I was hoping for the Dinosaur to show up but then I chose the Time Warp instead.
Today's comic: I love how Dale is in constant Gendo Hikari mode.
Loki:
--- Quote from: Sorflakne on 14 Oct 2011, 05:49 ---All you have to do is /who 'char's name' and you can find them wherever they are without having to go anywhere.
--- End quote ---
/who doesn't work on people of the opposite faction. He'd have to have created a Horde character in order to do this.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version