Robot Izonkei Joshi no Meiwaku na Nichijou - Vol. 2 Ch. 7.1 - Gale Oberon (part 1)

[Oeconomist]

@JokerDBlue—

You connect absolutely no dots in you claim that the references to diapers and to urine are jokes. One could just as easily say [ul]Here's the definition of ‘joke’. Now see that all these killings in Psycho are jokes! If you don't see that, then you're unable to understand a dictionary!
Here's the definition of ‘joke’. Now see that all the images in Architectural Digest are jokes! If you don't see that, then you're unable to understand a dictionary![/ul] Your argument is just an emphatic non-sequitur.

I'm not going to repeat myself across comments. In a comment to an earlier chapter, I walked anyone reading through how the diaper-and-urine reference could be seen not to be a joke.

(Years ago, I received a catalog of pornography offering depictions an act that I found repulsive. Not the act nor the depictions nor the offer were jokes. I handed the catalog to a co-worker, who laughed with delight. He didn't regard the depictions as jokes; he regarded them as delightful. I believe that he placed an order.)

No, rational examination of your argument is in pointing to its presumptions and its structure. (As in the case of pointing to the non-sequitur of your first paragraph.) And when the argument turned to rational examination as such, your response here was to try to change the subject. And your pseudo-quoting of me is an appalling falsification.

I simply didn't check the comment in which I made the typographic error. You drew bizarre conclusions from that error (which couldn't even be mistaken for a Freudian slip). I have no intention of doing something similar concerning your multiple errors; the reader and I deserve better than for me to stoop to the same level.

 

[Zephyrus]

@Oeconomist
@JokerDBlue

While this argument has been surprisingly civil, it has long passed the point where you both should have taken it to PM.

Please desist or further action will be taken. I'd recommend using the block function.

Thanks,

Zeph

 

[Oeconomist]

@Zephyrus—

If you'll review the argument, then you'll see that JokerDBlue has repeatedly argued that I in particular am a “pervert” (try a text search on the thread), and more generally that his entire thesis has been a direct, personal attack. For some reason, the rule against direct personal attacks has been ignored in each case. In the absence of that enforcement, I responded to each such attack with a refutation. It is not appropriate for you to claim that I should respond only privately to public attacks that administrators have chosen not to stop.

Given that the rule against direct personal attacks is largely unenforced (I'm not the only person subjected to such attacks without administrative response), I have trouble seeing the rule as doing much more than placing those who conform to it at a disadvantage.

 

[Zephyrus]

@Oeconomist
We do not generally moderate schoolyard slapfights, which is essentially what this is.

5.1.5 reads in its entirety:

Direct Personal Attacks: We encourage intelligent, thoughtful discussion on MangaDex. We encourage users to criticize the content of a post and not the poster themselves. This particular violation will be taken on a case by case basis since context and severity of the violation is important when a mod is considering taking action. For example, calling someone an idiot and offering evidence why they're an idiot will most likely not result in moderator action. Calling someone an idiot and doing nothing else will result in moderator action, not because you called someone an idiot, but because it was the sole content of your post. Note that especially egregious foul language may or may not result in moderator action.

The emphasis is mine.

Joker did nothing more than the schoolyard equivalent of calling you a name. Each post by both of you has been, all things considered, quite civil. I do not find that any rules have been broken in this thread. If a user's posts bother you so much, you can utilize the block function, which will prevent you from seeing the user on site at all and will prevent them from PMing you.

 

[Oeconomist]

@Zephyrus—

Schoolyard slapfights are not civil.

Again, the general thesis of his comments is a direct, personal attack. It is not that he simply threw-in insults as he pursued a different thesis. And all that I did was to refute those attacks as such.

Blocking him simply offers him an opportunity to continue with those insults without even a refutation. It is not plausibly a course that you would choose for yourself, and it shouldn't be suggested to me.