Media Sean Strickland playing the victim card now

[Oddmonster]

He was more concerned about the bigotry so he clearly equated them, and one would infer from that he finds bigotry worse and he, you and many others are willing to accept that child abuse is an acceptable response to racism/bigotry.

Also I never said he said it's worse, he demonstrated/inferred that. As I said he made an equivocation that neither are good, but was much more worried about the bigotry and then accepted an objectively indefensible position that child abuse/joking about is acceptable in the circumstances.
Then you accuse others of mental gymnastics and argue for your online buddy as he's too much off a pussy/halfwit to do it himself, aside from throw in some insults.

As I said I find your commentary and attempt at critical analysis cute. I give you props for trying and the persistent use of buzzwords and deflection. It's what moral relativists do when they want to argue the indefensible and are called out on it.

Where to begin......

He was more concerned about the bigotry so he clearly equated them

No. That is how you, wrongly, interpreted what he said. Which is why I say you have low reading comprehension.

I never said he said it's worse, he demonstrated/inferred that.

No, you interpreted what he said like that because you do not understand what is being said, or choose to misinterpret it. What you said he said was "bigotry and child abuse is equally ethically wrong". Which he did not. no one did. No one implied it. Even your best evidence shows he did not say that.

and he, you and many others are willing to accept that child abuse is an acceptable response to racism/bigotry.

Another strawman. No one said that. Noone implied that. It is all in your head.


Where I am from, we have a saying - "Thieves think everyone steals". And you calling everyone you disagree with child abusers or pedophiles, is a red flag to me.

 

[chinarice]

You maybe right. But the other martial artists should learn to "bigger man" sometimes. For me it's not about Strickland as much as it is about the fans watching.

Imagine if your a victim and already feeling like your life sucks and the one escape which you have is mma, but now the mma world is also is making fun of you. I'm just thinking about the fans who may be hating life right now. Don't want to hear your heroes make fun you do you.

Especially a guy like Sean O'Malley who has many young fans. They would be disappointed. That's what's on my mind. Not Strickland.

Why should THEY and not Sean learn to be the bigger man?

Imagine anything Sean Strickland brings up about other people and how it impacts their lives?

I don't feel even a little bit sorry for him. I feel for a guy like Wonderboy, who is nothing but a respectful person, getting called a pedophile by Colby. That shit is uncalled for.

Sean Strickland on the other hand, has no issue mocking race, religion, sexual orientation, preference and has no qualms going to the level of bigotry.

 

[chinarice]

Where to begin......


No. That is how you, wrongly, interpreted what he said. Which is why I say you have low reading comprehension.


No, you interpreted what he said like that because you do not understand what is being said, or choose to misinterpret it. What you said he said was "bigotry and child abuse is equally ethically wrong". Which he did not. no one did. No one implied it. Even your best evidence shows he did not say that.



Another strawman. No one said that. Noone implied that. It is all in your head.


Where I am from, we have a saying - "Thieves think everyone steals". And you calling everyone you disagree with child abusers or pedophiles, is a red flag to me.

The fact he needs this explained, should be embarrassing to him but we both know he's not embarrassed, just completely clueless lol

 

[bootsy]

I dislike Strickland’s personality, but what happened to him as a child is no fault of his, and shouldn’t be used as ammunition for trash talk, that’s just fucking low.

 

[Spinkick KO]

Where to begin......


No. That is how you, wrongly, interpreted what he said. Which is why I say you have low reading comprehension.


No, you interpreted what he said like that because you do not understand what is being said, or choose to misinterpret it. What you said he said was "bigotry and child abuse is equally ethically wrong". Which he did not. no one did. No one implied it. Even your best evidence shows he did not say that.



Another strawman. No one said that. Noone implied that. It is all in your head.


Where I am from, we have a saying - "Thieves think everyone steals". And you calling everyone you disagree with child abusers or pedophiles, is a red flag to me.

It's not in my head, he posted it himself and I wasn't the only one who "interpreted" it like that.

I'm not calling everyone who disagrees with me child abusers or pedophiles, that's an actual strawman and your interpretation from poor reading comprehension and an obvious lack of education and intellectual honesty. This is really sad champ.

 

[Simple Southerner]

 

[chinarice]

I dislike Strickland’s personality, but what happened to him as a child is no fault of his, and shouldn’t be used as ammunition for trash talk, that’s just fucking low.

None of the things Sean Strickland is saying should be ammunition for trash talk and is fucking low.

 

[Oddmonster]

It's not in my head, he posted it himself and I wasn't the only one who "interpreted" it like that.

I'm not calling everyone who disagrees with me child abusers or pedophiles, that's an actual strawman and your interpretation from poor reading comprehension and an obvious lack of education and intellectual honesty. This is really sad champ.

So what did you mean when you told me - "If you can't fathom this simple thing I hope you don't work in a field where you have access to children or are a parent"?

I might have misinterpreted what you wrote, but "access to children" sound pretty predatory to me.

 

[Spinkick KO]

So what did you mean when you told me - "If you can't fathom this simple thing I hope you don't work in a field where you have access to children or are a parent"?

I might have misinterpreted what you wrote, but "access to children" sound pretty predatory to me.

I am glad you are willing to concede you might have interpreted that incorrectly. The fact you still don't get it and need to ask, if reflecting on that concerns you it's something you should maybe discuss with a professional. But bluntly, sir, you clearly don't have the intellect to work in a field where you have any responsibility for the safety of others, or need to make ethical decisions on a very simple concept you should have understood in high school.

Because of your initial failure to comprehend that, despite me taking the time to give very clear examples and as you said "eloquent" definitions, you shitted up 10 pages using buzzwords, deflecting so you could defend your forum buddy to try and get him a W.

I hope it works out for you guys!

 

[Oddmonster]

I am glad you are willing to concede you might have interpreted that incorrectly. The fact you still don't get it and need to ask, if reflecting on that concerns you it's something you should maybe discuss with a professional. But bluntly, sir, you clearly don't have the intellect to work in a field where you have any responsibility for the safety of others, or need to make ethical decisions on a very simple concept you should have understood in high school.

Because of your initial failure to comprehend that, despite me taking the time to give very clear examples and as you said "eloquent" definitions, you shitted up 10 pages using buzzwords, deflecting so you could defend your forum buddy to try and get him a W.

I hope it works out for you guys!

Haha you do know that when you have to lie about what you ment with something, that is an automatical loss, right? Pretty weak.


To use your logic, I could lay out your opinion like this

" Spinkick thinks child abuse is bad, but thinks slavery and lynching of black people is great". Which, using your logic, I could easily interpret from your posts since you clearly think child abuse is worse then bigotry, and bigotry was a huge part of slavery. It would be a bad faith argument. It would be a strawman argument. It would be based not on what you said, but what I interpreted.

That is how you debate. You are dishonest, and lack basic debate skills, and understanding of how to build your argument.

You are eloquent, yes, but you have the reading comprehension of a child. It is rather interesting.

Let me guess - You are a conservative christian?

 

[Spinkick KO]

Haha you do know that when you have to lie about what you ment with something, that is an automatical loss, right? Pretty weak.


To use your logic, I could lay out your opinion like this

" Spinkick thinks child abuse is bad, but thinks slavery and lynching of black people is great". Which, using your logic, I could easily interpret from your posts since you clearly think child abuse is worse then bigotry, and bigotry was a huge part of slavery. It would be a bad faith argument. It would be a strawman argument. It would be based not on what you said, but what I interpreted.

That is how you debate. You are dishonest, and lack basic debate skills, and understanding of how to build your argument.

You are eloquent, yes, but you have the reading comprehension of a child. It is rather interesting.

Let me guess - You are a conservative christian?

The basic premise of my argument which you still don't get is that you can't hold bigotry and child abuse to be bad and then find child abuse to be acceptable and all "hurr durr Sean deserves it cause he made a gay joke"

If you go back you will see where I said Sean was out of line and the consensus of the community would agree with that. I never defended Sean's homophobic comments or his attacks on Ian etc.

Accusing others of being dishonest, strawman attacks, personal insults, all whilst doing it yourself combined with some absurd attempt at using my own logic against me to paint me as a racist, in bad faith. All of these assertions and assumptions based on your own interpretations - delusions.
You're truly special, so kawaii.

I'm actually a strong independant black irish muslim woman who don't need no man. Now bugger off, you dimwitted rapscallion.

 

[Oddmonster]

The basic premise of my argument which you still don't get is that you can't hold racism and child abuse to be bad and then find child abuse to be acceptable and all "hurr durr Sean deserves it cause he made a gay joke"

If you go back you will see where I said Sean was out of line and the consensus of the community would agree with that. I never defended Sean's homophobic comments or his attacks on Ian etc.

Accusing others of being dishonest, strawman attacks, personal insults, all whilst doing it yourself combined with some absurd attempt at using my own logic against me to paint me as a racist, in bad faith. All of these assertions and assumptions based on your own interpretations - delusions.
You're truly special, so kawaii.

I'm actually a strong independant black irish muslim woman who don't need no man. Now bugger off, you dimwitted rapscallion.

I agree. Calling you a racist based on your posts would be dillusional, it would be in bad faith, it would be based on asertions and assumptions and interpretations. Which is why I did not accuse you of being racist - I showed how, using your logic and way of debating, I could interpret you as being racist. I even told you that was what I was doing. And again, I agree - your way is dillusional, bad faith, and assumption based.

 

[Spinkick KO]

I agree. Calling you a racist based on your posts would be dillusional, it would be in bad faith, it would be based on asertions and assumptions and interpretations. Which is why I did not accuse you of being racist - I showed how, using your logic and way of debating, I could interpret you as being racist. I even told you that was what I was doing. And again, I agree - your way is dillusional, bad faith, and assumption based.

You didn't really display anything aside a staggering amount of hypocrisy, poor reading comprehension, a profound lack of ignorance on a very simple ethical concept and a dying devotion to chinarice's online reputation.

All the while accusing me of insults while accusing me of poor reading comprehension, strawman attacks and being in bad faith, while not once actually focusing on the anything to do with my core argument on moral objectivity or relativism.
You intentionally avoided that, your attempt at using logic was at your standard Joe Dirt level, if you think that demonstrated anything aside how far on the spectrum you are, I seriously can't help but laugh. Were you exposed to lead as a child?

The cherry on the top was asking me if I'm a conservative christian. That was surely in "good faith".

 

[Corrado Soprano]

Sean Strickland acting like a victim is something I never thought I’d see. For someone who makes offensive comments about everyone and regularly crosses boundaries, he looks really weak here.

 

[Rio Ferdinand]

 

[ColombianFist]

Strickland has a point on his isses but, if you shit talk you better be ready for the comeback.

The only winner here is Dana

 

[sandokan83]

It is me or the only guy that Sean respects is Alex. I wonder why...

 

[Oddmonster]

You didn't really display anything aside a staggering amount of hypocrisy, poor reading comprehension, a profound lack of ignorance on a very simple ethical concept and a dying devotion to chinarice's online reputation.

All the while accusing me of insults while accusing me of poor reading comprehension, strawman attacks and being in bad faith, while not once actually focusing on the anything to do with my core argument on moral objectivity or relativism.
You intentionally avoided that, your attempt at using logic was at your standard Joe Dirt level, if you think that demonstrated anything aside how far on the spectrum you are, I seriously can't help but laugh. Were you exposed to lead as a child?

The cherry on the top was asking me if I'm a conservative christian. That was surely in "good faith".

When you COMPLETELY misrepresent was is written, it shows a lack of reading comprehension. It is not an insult, it is just a fact.

You have given zero examples of what you call my hypocrasy or strawman arguments.

I asked if you were a conservative christian because those are the kind of people I see argue as you do.

About your core argument - EVERYONE has said both of them were in the wrong. And everyone here thinks literally abusing a child is much worse then calling someone a n*gger. Your whole way to force this argument is just childish.

And yes, I agree - My example of how you use logic was at standard Joe Dirt level i agree. It was your kind of logic after all.

 

[Spinkick KO]

When you COMPLETELY misrepresent was is written, it shows a lack of reading comprehension. It is not an insult, it is just a fact.

You have given zero examples of what you call my hypocrasy or strawman arguments.

I asked if you were a conservative christian because those are the kind of people I see argue as you do.

About your core argument - EVERYONE has said both of them were in the wrong. And everyone here thinks literally abusing a child is much worse then calling someone a n*gger. Your whole way to force this argument is just childish.

And yes, I agree - My example of how you use logic was at standard Joe Dirt level i agree. It was your kind of logic after all.

When you use caps to highlight things, you're acting out like a passive aggressive teenage girl.

Not everyone has said both were in the wrong, you continually slightly move the goal post and accuse me of things I've never said like making out like everyone here is on that same position. I've explained what the argument is repeatedly and you're convinced somehow going to squirm your way into being "right" the main point of contention with the argument in this thread is whether Sean deserves it, is it acceptable in return, many people have said if he's willing to give shit he has to take it. Ergo; not everyone has said Sean and DDP is in the wrong and your cuckrice buddy made a basic equivocation without any weight that both were deferentially bad, but child abuse was actually acceptable, given the circumstance, as have many others. Have you been reading this thread O'Lord of reading comprehension?

You use a crap attempt at logic by setting up "hypothetical" propositions where child abuse was bad but slavery was great that I somehow agreed with. Setting up a bad faith situation, loading or framing my position as "hypothetically" racist, then asking if I was a christian conservative and think you are acting in good faith and are being intellectually honest. Fucking hilarious. None of the arguments I've made were on whether something was morally good, just that both are objectively bad and you can't accept the other as good/acceptable in response to the other, that wasn't the logic I used, it was your halfwit attempt at framing a hypothetical analogy, that wasn't even relevant, from that alone you are being disingenuous and it's flawed.

You certainly have learned a lot about people who supposedly argue as "I" do, since you actually do it yourself and have the self reflection and critical thinking skills of a house brick, you can't even recognize it.

I do hope you have an extensive background in martial arts as a punching bag so you can always fall back on CTE as an excuse.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Sir you are an idiot....so many trash people out here.

So let's say your wife cheats on you and you take her back....I'm a co worker I get wind of it and tell everyone your a cuck. Everyone laughs at you.

Now let's say your daughter is molested and abused. I tell everyone haha haaaa and everyone at work says your 10 yo daughter is a whore and liked it



I bet you try to kill all of us

Cucking vs rape and abuse of a child is not equal asshole

they're both bringing a gun to work imo