Are insulting responses effective to furthering your aims?

[Cspeter8]

Thanks for that link, I read the entire thread with great interest.

I didn't bother to do any quick and easy research, such as using the search button, so I didn't know that everything I brought up, once again, has been covered. I don't really want to know what the law really is, I just want to find things that confirm what I already knew to be right. JamesVincent's cat can understand Constitutional law better than I can and is much more attractive.

Paraphrased slightly.

There has been quite alot of insults flying back and forth, but this remark in my opinion was one of the worst.

There is a good side to this site, which has drawn me in. There's alot of knowledge offered here which I have been intellectually honest enough to carefully consider. However I would suggest you all consider how the personal insults direted towards people who have a differing point of view makes you look alot smaller and less intelligent, and also far less persuasive and influential among people who maybe are still questioning many of these issues.

Do you want to see better voluntary compliance with the US taxing authority? Do you want to see people like Peymon Mottaheda attract fewer people who purchase his services? Do you want to see fewer citizens clogging the tax courts with the same tax protest arguments over and over? Do you want more people to file the 1040 return for whom the IRC and the case law indicates they are required to file? Do you want fewer tax protestors filling the prisons, which cost the government a significant expense?

Every time you insult, belittle, or assasinate the character of a person of another point of view, you are closing off the ability to influence them to consider your point of view, not only with that person, but other people who are looking at the insulting stuff you wrote about them. Every time you replace Peymon with Payme, or characterize him as a scammer in every reference to his name, you think that makes you more pursuasive? No, it does the opposite.

Is Peymon an angel in this regard? No. He looks dumber too everytime he disparages federal judges who write opinions he disagrees with, accusing them of bad character.

Civil, respectful discussion is essential for human civilization to flourish. The converse of that is civil war, if we stop listening to each other. And personal insults do shut down our ability to listen to each other.

[Pottapaug1938]

The problem is that you keep on posting the same warmed-over malarkey, and have yet to show that your questions, or those of Peymon, carry any legal weight. We've cut you a lot of slack; but our patience is finite, especially when you are in "just asking questions" mode, but your questions are inane.

[JamesVincent]

There's alot of knowledge offered here which I have been intellectually honest enough to carefully consider.

No, actually, you haven't and it shows. You have done exactly what every other troll that comes here has done: try to cherry pick particular quotes that seem to mean what they want them to mean. That's about as intellectually dishonest as you can get. As far as insulting let me point out something, do you consider the truth insulting?

I didn't bother to do any quick and easy research

Takes a total of 30 seconds to do a site search on Quatloos. Every single thing you brought up has already been explained. Numerous times. In numerous threads. I linked, twice now, Dan Evans FAQ. Every single thing you brought up, including the 16th amendment horseshit, is fully explained there. How much you spent perusing it? So it's pretty obvious that you have done zip for actual, honest, research.

I don't really want to know what the law is

Again, perfectly honest that you don't want to know what it is. If you actually did you would have taken the advice of multiple people and spent time reading it. Instead you spent your time rehashing tired old TP arguments. You have yet to add one single bit of insight that has not been beaten to death time and time again.

I just want to find things that confirm what I already knew to be right

Again, perfectly obvious. When you started the 16th amendment thread I stated pretty plainly that there was nothing new to discuss, linked to one of the Supreme Court cases that settled the whole 16th argument over 100 years ago. You ignored it. The Observer sent you to the Wiki page explaining why the 16th not ratified argument is DOA, you just continued right into it anyway. You also quoted from multiple different scammers. none of which have never won a case on it's merits. So when they continually lose does that mean they are right?

JamesVincent's cat can understand Constitutional law better than I can and is much more attractive

Would not be hard since you apparently understand nothing about it. And he is a handsome guy, I'm putting my money on him.


As far as insulting, please. Are you 5? We as a site, and me personally, are not here to persuade you of anything except what the law is recognized as and what the penalty is for breaking it. You want to believe in the crap that Payme and others spout? Knock yourself out. You want to do your "research" on TP websites? Have fun with that. Don't expect the people who actually have done the research to hold your hand and spoon feed you information. Try being honest with yourself about what it is you are actually trying to accomplish. You literally tried to argue law with someone who not only has a J.D. but has practiced law for longer than you have probably been alive.

judicial supremacy, and some related concepts that had me quite excited.

This statement right here said more about you than any statement you yourself have made. And Wes nailed it:

In other words, you indulged your confirmation bias. Perhaps. the next time you wish to discuss law, try starting with law.

So if you want to discuss the law, discuss it.

[wserra]

Every now and then, I try my hand at short fiction. I don't claim to write fiction well; I'm much better at non-fiction. Therefore, allow me to present you with an idea for a short story I'm thinking of writing. Please critique it.

A guy comes into a house inhabited by people with a common interest, many of whom are quite knowledgeable about that interest. Moreover, for over twenty years, they have been willing to spend their time sharing that knowledge without compensation.

As soon as he bursts through the door, the guy starts ranting about how what they have been saying is all wrong. He presents no proof. Instead, he cites things that don't exist. He calls the folks who live there "sheep" and "un-american". He continues his stay by expounding on stuff that is the contextual equivalent of Piltdown man. He praises liars and frauds. He throws stuff against the wall, all of which is wrong; when presented with proof that his stuff is wrong, he ignores it and changes the subject. He refuses to answer questions. He generally makes himself obnoxious by doing things like equating being subject to law with slavery. Finally, when he has nowhere else to go, he complains about how he's being treated.

Nah, nobody would believe it, right? I said that I was better at non-fiction.

[JamesVincent]

Please critique it.

Sounds pretty far fetched, almost like that it's not how social interaction should occur. Bonus points for the Piltdown Man reference though.

[Pottapaug1938]

Cspeter8's nose is out of joint because he thought that he could waltz onto Quatloos and get his biases confirmed. At first, we cut him some slack and tried to explain the facts to him; but once he started pushing the same old pile of road apples at us, we lost our respect for him.

Cspeter8, if you want to play with the big boys, but won't play by the rules, it will not go well for you.

[morrand]

Every time you insult, belittle, or assasinate the character of a person of another point of view, you are closing off the ability to influence them to consider your point of view, not only with that person, but other people who are looking at the insulting stuff you wrote about them. Every time you replace Peymon with Payme, or characterize him as a scammer in every reference to his name, you think that makes you more pursuasive? No, it does the opposite.

I will always side with civility in any argument. It is my own inclination as well. But you are very mistaken here.

As I said previously, there is a difference between saying what the law is and saying what the law ought to be. This board is concerned with the first of those. There is no persuasion involved: the law is what it is, and whether you are persuaded of that or not is of no concern. If you are insulted by that, then I think you are too easily insulted. You may as well be insulted by the rain falling on you while you are walking down the street.

Discussing what the law ought to be is an exercise in persuasion. It is also a political exercise, and as such, not the domain of this forum. This has been explained to you both gently and forcefully. You will not listen, insisting instead that what the law is should match what you say it ought to be, and that anyone who explains that it is otherwise, without convincing you of the justice of their position, is ignoring you. The arrogance of this stance would be insulting if it were not ridiculous.

Peymon is ridiculous, in the literal sense, for this reason. It should give no surprise that he is ridiculed for that. It has been his choice to take up a ridiculous position and to maintain it in the face of the law. If it had been thrust upon him, or were involuntary for some other reason, then perhaps there would be a wrong in ridiculing his position. Presuming him to be an intelligent person, it would be wrong to do otherwise as it would suggest he had no agency in taking it. As it is, he should know, after multiple rulings against him personally and plenty of precedent besides (all of which has already been brought up), that what he's selling does not work.

Scammers are scammers. If Peymon does not want to be called a scammer, then he should not scam people. I don't think it is insulting to say that he knows better. An intelligent and rational person would by now.

[The Observer]

There is a good side to this site, which has drawn me in. There's alot of knowledge offered here which I have been intellectually honest enough to carefully consider

In addition to what James has said about this remark, I would like to point out another reason for why you are getting blasted here. You have made similar remarks that on the face of it appear to be complimentary in regards to the knowledge and experience of the regulars here. The problem is that your actions do not correspond with your remarks. At this point you are appearing to be sycophantic in an attempt to manipulate us. If you were really intellectually honest, you would have been able to determine that whatever tax-denier information you were reading was not reliable and chucked it once we started exposing the faults and lies for your benefit. But you keep regurgitating similar material while passing out insincere compliments. It's strange for you to expect us to waste time responding to you when you cannot demonstrate that you have learned anything from what has been shared.

As an example, you wrote this:

Is Peymon an angel in this regard? No. He looks dumber too everytime he disparages federal judges who write opinions he disagrees with, accusing them of bad character.

The logical expectation is that if you are finding problems with how Peymon is off track on judges then you should not be trying to uphold him as being a person that you can believe and rely on, as well as not offering his statements and quotes that you feel are authoritive and support your beliefs. And if you think that all you have to do to avoid criticism is throw a compliment or two at us, then you have a very distorted view about how to interact with others in an intellectually honest way.

Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn’t exist in any declaration I have ever read.
~ Salman Rushdie

[JamesVincent]

One final note and then I'm done.

The absolute and singular arrogance that you have displayed is unbelievable.

The first in trying to compare paying taxes to slavery. As Wes rightfully pointed out that denigrates the actual pain of those who have lived in actual slavery, which still occurs in this world of ours. At the same time the arrogance of living in the greatest country on Earth, with rights and freedoms other countries don't have and in some ways can't even comprehend since they have never had them, and complaining because your fellow citizens expect you to help pay for the things you receive. Who in the actual do you think you are?

The second is believing that everyone should give you what you want. Whether it's opinions or other things, like respect. You have done nothing to earn anyone's respect and have actively gone out of the way to give reason to not give any civility either. You have added nothing to the conversations you yourself started that has not been covered over and over. And yet you have been given the benefit of the doubt multiple times and people have tried to be nice about it. And then you get your panties in a twist because they stopped being so nice. Get over yourself.

The third is the title to this very thread. Who are you to decide what our aims are? Our aims are very well defined and insulting you has nothing to with them. Per our blog page:

A public educational website covering a wide variety of financial scams & frauds

Your idol was proven to be a scammer, multiple times. Every quote you have used was shown to be made by someone who is either a scammer or is absolutely clueless about the law. So we, as a site, have fulfilled our stated aim and purpose. In spades.

Lastly the fact that you think you can lecture someone about civility. Your overall attitude to the law is offensive and you have made some pretty offensive comments, as has been pointed out when they occurred. The fact that you claim to be using "intellectual honesty" in regards to what has been commented is pretty offensive to those of us who are actually being honest and forthright.

As far as insulting you goes that was not even an insult buckwheat.

[Cspeter8]

I'm getting a better understanding about annoyances many of you are feeling around my past postings. It was never my intent to intentionally annoy anyone. Thanks for sharing a clear picture of how things look from your side.

[Cspeter8]

One final note and then I'm done.

The absolute and singular arrogance that you have displayed is unbelievable.

You are free to voice your opinion.

The first in trying to compare paying taxes to slavery. As Wes rightfully pointed out that denigrates the actual pain of those who have lived in actual slavery, which still occurs in this world of ours. At the same time the arrogance of living in the greatest country on Earth, with rights and freedoms other countries don't have and in some ways can't even comprehend since they have never had them, and complaining because your fellow citizens expect you to help pay for the things you receive. Who in the actual do you think you are?

Any rebuttal of this would be immediately perceived as extremely off-topic to my perceived purpose of this board. So, no comment.

The second is believing that everyone should give you what you want. Whether it's opinions or other things, like respect. You have done nothing to earn anyone's respect and have actively gone out of the way to give reason to not give any civility either. You have added nothing to the conversations you yourself started that has not been covered over and over. And yet you have been given the benefit of the doubt multiple times and people have tried to be nice about it. And then you get your panties in a twist because they stopped being so nice. Get over yourself.

My aim is that you won't see me post anything here again in way of question without a thorough search first.

The third is the title to this very thread. Who are you to decide what our aims are? Our aims are very well defined and insulting you has nothing to with them. Per our blog page:

A public educational website covering a wide variety of financial scams & frauds

I was trying to be helpful, but obviously my choice of wording missed their mark by quite a ways.

Your idol was proven to be a scammer, multiple times. Every quote you have used was shown to be made by someone who is either a scammer or is absolutely clueless about the law. So we, as a site, have fulfilled our stated aim and purpose. In spades.

I've maintained an open mind regarding Peymon Mottahedah, even though I am seeing more problems with the honesty of his presentations due to much well-sourced information on this website. But I have never viewed Peymon as an idol. I intend to not hold any person as an idol; I only worship Jesus.

Lastly the fact that you think you can lecture someone about civility. Your overall attitude to the law is offensive and you have made some pretty offensive comments, as has been pointed out when they occurred. The fact that you claim to be using "intellectual honesty" in regards to what has been commented is pretty offensive to those of us who are actually being honest and forthright.

As far as insulting you goes that was not even an insult buckwheat.

Again, thanks for sharing. It certainly was not my intention to antagonize you.

[wserra]

Alright, everyone, please just start over. Pretend that the next Cspeter8 post (if there is one) is the first. That will not insulate him (or anyone else, including me) from future criticism, just from past.

I'm locking this thread. Feel free to start another, or - if about Mottahedeh - to post to one of the open threads. I'm likely to consolidate the salient stuff about him - in other words, not the flaming - to the thread in the Promoters forum at some point anyway.