longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 6:39pm:


Wasn't the whole point of your challenge that people produce a piece in support of a proposition they personally oppose?

Yeas?

Actually, Aussie, according to Longy, the point of his challenge was to string the board along for a couple of weeks and ultimately trick us. For Longy, it was all an elaborate attempt to out-manipulate everybody, and it worked a treat.

No one believes him now.

For some reason though, Longy is still really anxious that everyone consider him a "serious" writer. He refuses to prove this, of course, he just keeps repeating it.

But yeas, we’re free to get to the point of Longy’s trick challenge and post our own work - no plagiarism, no limits. The challenge is to persuade people of something we truly disagree with.

I look forward to your argument, Aussie. I’m open to being turned onto slavery, and I hope you feel the same way about paedophilia.

Karnal wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 8:13pm:



I think he out manipulated himself in the process 

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 10:03am:


Bad temper? Not at all! We've all welcomed your challenge, Longy, and in particular, your response to it. The lack of any actual writing was most educational.

I'll hold off my judgment on seriousness and talent until I read Aussie and my own arguments on subjects you consider untouchable: slavery and paedophilia. Who knows? I might find myself lost for an argument, just as I did on Bill Shorten.

It's a telling state of affairs that paedophilia seems easier to defend than the alternative prime minister, but that's the dearth of Australian political leadership for you.

The difference between those who have accepted the challenge and the poster who issued it is one of what John Howard called ticker. Some see a challenge like this as an opportunity to extend their writing and critical thinking skills. It's about having a bit of fun.

The challenger sees it as a way to "out-manipulate" others, offering increasingly desperate excuses for why he refuses to actually write anything. It's about fear, intimidation and saving face at all costs. The challenger would rather write pages of insults and self-flattery than sit down and draft a good argument. It's a testament to his skills in writing and persuasion, and the best example I've ever seen of delusional self-indulgence.

And on this board, that's saying something.

I'm really grateful for the challenge, Longy. I don't feel bad tempered about it at all. I look forward to your critique of our arguments. I'm sure that will be educational too.

I don't "support" incest from a moral point of view. But I am against laws that forbid it. As long as it is a matter between consenting adults, the state has no business to stop it.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 3:26pm:


Now that’s the closest you’ve got to explaining your aversion to gay incest, Longy.

Looks like you’re learning after all.

Ajax wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 6:52pm:


Thanks for taking what I produced as fair dinkum.  Melielongtime will not thank you for it, though.  He reckons I am unable to produce a credible opinion piece on a subject I do not support.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 11:52pm:



Historically, sexual activity began as soon as puberty developed. it is only in the very recent past that this has been changed. So if the strict laws forbidding incest -which has been forbidden for millenia - are irrelevent to you, why should consensual incest for any post-pubescent be a problem.  Your position is inconsistent.