I think it speaks volumes that you guys think this is funny. How many people have died already this year from gun accidents? How many last year? It's this kind of deafness of tone that is eroding support for a very much outdated ideology.
Oh, so you're all about gun safety huh? Do you support the NRA Eddie Eagle program? Do you even know what the actual rules of gun safety are?
It speaks volumes that a person who is so ignorant about guns would dare lecture me on gun safety. What have you done today to further the cause of gun safety?
Or is your entire repertoire limited to repeating the mantra of 'too many guns'?
You do realize that when you claim the problem to be 'too many guns', then the only solution you are providing is 'less guns'? You also realize that illuminates as the lie it is when you claim 'no one is coming for your guns'?
You are person B, presenting position Y. I am person A presenting position X which is the assertion that I don't think that with the amount of gun violence we have in this country that making jokes like this is helpful. If anything, it desensitizes people to gun violence and makes them think that the sort of behavior illustrated here in this graphic is light and OK.
Compare this graphic with the Eddie Eagle program. As you note, that is a more appropriate way to talk about gun safety. This graphic is not.
L'il Marksie is a humorless prig and a scold, I see. Does anyone other than a complete moron mistake this graphic for serious (or unserious) gun safety lessons? No? I didn't think so. Besides, everyone knows children are better suited to crew-served weapons.
That's because this graphic IS NOT in any way and by anybody except the clinically humourless an attempt to illustrate gun safety.....
Now I get it. As I said, you have no sense of humour. You admit it. You claim that 'gun violence' overwhelms your ability to find humour in this.
OK.
Seeing as how more people die in auto accidents in this country, I have to wonder - do you cry when you see a beautiful classic car?
Not because it is a beautiful classic car, but rather because it represents the carnage perpetrated upon our children by the 'car culture'. The culture that has the nerve to make light of those death machines by customizing them, racing them, by enjoying the driving of them.....
Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Typing on the phone, correcting error ' can be difficult. I could have just said fuck you, wrong and let you figure out what you did wrong. But I was simply pointing out that you made a transcription error.
So now that the stupid minutia is done, how about focusing on the point?
I did not make a transcription error. Again, I don't think you understand what a straw man argument is. We can't proceed until you accept the facts of this logical fallacy. Again, the link..
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man
Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000." Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?" Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it." Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead." Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones." "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that." Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets: Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy." Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?" Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
Another link..
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man debate takes the following form. 1st person puts forward argument A. 2nd person puts forward argument B which alters argument A misleadingly. 2nd person refutes argument B. It appears superficially that argument A has been refuted.
Alright, let's begin with my original argument (A).
It's this kind of deafness of tone that is eroding support for a very much outdated ideology.
You then responded with a series of questions (not really a counter argument, btw) in which you mentioned my "ignorance of guns," a mantra of "too many guns" and people coming to take guns. All of these are B as they had nothing to do with my original point which was about deafness of tone in terms of PR about Gun Safety.
I then re-explained my point (A)
I don't think that with the amount of gun violence we have in this country that making jokes like this is helpful. If anything, it desensitizes people to gun violence and makes them think that the sort of behavior illustrated here in this graphic is light and OK.
You then responded with an argument about cars (B). This is a classic straw man and parallels the argument in my second link above. We aren't talking about cars, we are talking about guns, specifically the deafness of tone and the bad PR of this graphic.
So to recap,
I put forth an argument about deafness of tone and bad PR You altered my argument, misleadingly, with my alleged ignorance of guns, too many guns, people coming to take guns, and how cars are worse than guns and why I'm a not crying about them? You then refuted this argument. And thus it appears that my original point has been refuted.
Of course, it hasn't. This is what you guys at TSM do all the time. When you get trapped with something that makes you look really, really bad, you employ a series of logical fallacies ("pedantic, semantic arguments seem to the weapon of choice") in a, quite frankly, pathetic attempt to erode a fact which terrifies you. You guys really suck at actually defending something. I haven't seen any of you do it with even average skill yet. You simply can't resist fallacy and personal attacks. And you claim to be logical, rational and fact based...
Respond to my original points without redirecting the conversation. You think this graphic is funny? Why or why not?
Yes, let's begin with your original argument, which is not what you just said it was. This isn't the first time we've ever had a conversation about guns. Yeah, there's a little carry over there. EXACTLY like your response had carry over from previous conversations. Hell, your original post has carry over, including your tags for it. Don't try to play this post off as if it stands alone.
But if we look at what you claim your 'original' point is:
"my original point which was about deafness of tone in terms of PR about Gun Safety." (Which was so obvious...and which you had to explain further.)
My point stands re: Gun safety - you have limited knowledge of guns and gun safety, making your pronouncements of such rather useless.
Then you followed up with:
"I don't think that with the amount of gun violence we have in this country that making jokes like this is helpful. If anything, it desensitizes people to gun violence and makes them think that the sort of behavior illustrated here in this graphic is light and OK."
Counter argument presented (which you have ignored): "That's because this graphic IS NOT in any way and by anybody except the clinically humourless an attempt to illustrate gun safety....."
After ignoring said counter, you go on to focus on a secondary argument, which was an analogy of your argument.
Definition of analogy: Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
Now, I had asked you to logically diagram your position, then do the same to mine and compare. Apparently you are unable to do that....
So let's see what your position looks like logically:
How many people have died already this year from gun accidents? How many last year? It's this kind of deafness of tone that is eroding support for a very much outdated ideology.
I don't think that with the amount of gun violence we have in this country that making jokes like this is helpful. If anything, it desensitizes people to gun violence and makes them think that the sort of behavior illustrated here in this graphic is light and OK.
Breaking that down into something more compact:
How many people have died already this year from gun accidents? How many last year?
I don't think that with the amount of gun violence we have in this country
OK. Gun accidents, gun violence...and dead people.
Seems your argument is that because of guns we have dead people. Check.
Seems to be that you are saying we can't do anything light hearted regarding guns because of the dead people caused by guns. Check.
Your argument logically is thus:
Guns cause dead people. Because of dead people don't make light of guns.
Or:
Guns->Dead people Dead people->Don't make light of guns.
Or:
Guns(A)->Dead people(B) Dead people(B)->Don't make light of(C)(Cause of dead people(A))
Or:
A->B B->C(A)
Granted, it's not very good logic but then, your argument isn't very good either.
I used a form of logic called an analogy to infer something similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
In the case of your argument I inferred cars, using the similarity that because of cars there are accidents and dead people. Similar to your argument of because of guns there are accidents and dead people.
Plug that similar object into the logical equation and we get:
X->B B->C(X)
Cars->Dead people Dead people->Don't make light of (Cars)
Or:
Cars cause dead people. Because of dead people don't make light of cars.
Apparently you don't like this analogy.
Too bad, it is your logic in action.
It is not a straw man, it is a refutation of your own logic. Refuted by yourself when you decided you didn't like the way it worked.
As a P.S. to your finalizing statements:
You simply can't resist fallacy and personal attacks.
Said while giving over a paragraph to personal attacks....
you employ a series of logical fallacies ("pedantic, semantic arguments seem to the weapon of choice
You use "pedantic, semantic arguments" like it's a bad thing.
Well, it would be except when having to argue with people who are the exact opposite. Hint- that would be you.
Let's look at what the antonyms to those words are:
Yeah, imprecise and solecistic. Can't help but argue pedantically and semantically when face with someone who is imprecise and solecistic.
Just like this:
Respond to my original points without redirecting the conversation. You think this graphic is funny? Why or why not?
Hmmm, strange but nowhere prior to this did you ever even mention that your original point required me to answer whether I personally felt this graphic was funny - or that your original point required me to explain why or why not. Are you changing the goal posts again?
Ah, so this is an opinion of yours that doesn't really matter but the rest of your comments do matter and are relevant? Let me guess, the non sequitur nonsense and continued genetic fallacy that you have employed here in an attempt to cloud the fact that you had a decidedly emotionally response to this post is the relevant part.
If this graphic is "IS NOT in any way and by anybody except the clinically humourless an attempt to illustrate gun safety," then what is it attempting to do? It's titled "Top Ten Gun Safety Tips." If this is a joke, then why do you find it funny?
At what point in the last 21 comments has it been at issue whether I think this is funny?
Since the beginning of the discussion. I suppose this is one of those opinions of yours that is irrelevant, no? Do you think it's funny-yes or no? Enough with the dodging, GD. I've already explained that I don't think it's funny at all and is extremely tone deaf. What do you think?
I'm probably going to turn this into a post at some point but here's the pattern that you and other conservatives follow consistently.
1. You are presented with an unpleasant fact about your ideology and/or the people that support it. '
2. You quietly shit yourself and realize just how fucking bad this makes you guys look.
3. You realize that this fact is indefensible so you quickly redirect to the person presenting the fact, in this case me.
4. You present a series of logical fallacies and imperial declarations that are complete nonsense. The focus here is completely on the presenter, not the fact itself because that would mean looking bad.
5. When called on it, you simply revert to asking question after question (as you have above) filled with nonsense, knowing that the presenter won't answer, and then, when the presenter tries to get back to the fact, you accuse them of dodging and not answering questions.
6. Rinse and repeat.
It's OK if your side does or says stupid things/makes mistakes. Democrats do it all the time (e.g. Buck Johnson and Guam tipping over). The president does it (you can keep your insurance, military assaults on women getting worse on his watch).
You have to get off of this bizarre idea that admitting fault in one area means your entire ideology falls apart. In fact, by not admitting fault with anything in your ideology, it really makes it look like you have plenty to hide. Of course, this makes a lot of sense because there is a veritable mountain of bad ideas with conservative ideology so, in some ways, I can see why you behave the way you do.
I want to see you own some of the bullshit from the people you support, GD. People like the ones that think this sort of graphic is funny. Is that you? Why or why not?
Dude that was a complete wall of nonsensical mouth foaming mental masturbation.
Not a single bit of it reflects reality. From the first bit about any part of this thread being contingent upon my opinion of the cartoon through that whole bullshit armchair psychologist bit to the end where you think that I'm somehow refusing to admit fault.
No, fuck you Mark.
I simply refuse to let you try to redirect what this conversation has been about FROM THE FUCKING BEGINNING. Which at no point whatsoever was about what I thought about the cartoon - and the entire time - including the part where YOU saw fit to post it and comment about it - has been about YOUR opinion of it.
As I said - and I'll repeat for the chronically stupid - I will gladly comment upon what I think about it - AFTER we are all done with the other discussion.
All you needed to do was say we are done with that other discussion. That we are done with your B.S. accusation of straw manning and discussing your opinion of it.
But you couldn't just do that could you?
Nope, you posted a whole shit load of personal attacks because YOU just can't READ what I said and take that at face value. You can't READ that I won't dance to your little redirect tune.
You didn't reply to my post that dissected your logic. Instead you want my opinion on humor....
What does that say other than - redirect?
So, are we done with your little B.S. straw man argument? Are we done discussing your opinion of the cartoon?
Or are you going to continue with your little fantasy arguments?
Actually, GD, it's all part of the same, ongoing conversation. By your highly emotional and illogical response here, it's evident that I hit the (ahem) mark. Your comments in total more or less confirm what I have been asserting so there's really no need to respond further.
26 comments:
Or, in other words, Mark has a seriously deficient sense of humor.
No $h%^! Geez M, while that is funny, it is even funnier that you think it is an indictment of gun owners. Ha ha. What a maroon!
I think it speaks volumes that you guys think this is funny. How many people have died already this year from gun accidents? How many last year? It's this kind of deafness of tone that is eroding support for a very much outdated ideology.
Oh, so you're all about gun safety huh? Do you support the NRA Eddie Eagle program? Do you even know what the actual rules of gun safety are?
It speaks volumes that a person who is so ignorant about guns would dare lecture me on gun safety. What have you done today to further the cause of gun safety?
Or is your entire repertoire limited to repeating the mantra of 'too many guns'?
You do realize that when you claim the problem to be 'too many guns', then the only solution you are providing is 'less guns'? You also realize that illuminates as the lie it is when you claim 'no one is coming for your guns'?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
You are person B, presenting position Y. I am person A presenting position X which is the assertion that I don't think that with the amount of gun violence we have in this country that making jokes like this is helpful. If anything, it desensitizes people to gun violence and makes them think that the sort of behavior illustrated here in this graphic is light and OK.
Compare this graphic with the Eddie Eagle program. As you note, that is a more appropriate way to talk about gun safety. This graphic is not.
L'il Marksie is a humorless prig and a scold, I see. Does anyone other than a complete moron mistake this graphic for serious (or unserious) gun safety lessons? No? I didn't think so. Besides, everyone knows children are better suited to crew-served weapons.
That's because this graphic IS NOT in any way and by anybody except the clinically humourless an attempt to illustrate gun safety.....
Now I get it. As I said, you have no sense of humour. You admit it. You claim that 'gun violence' overwhelms your ability to find humour in this.
OK.
Seeing as how more people die in auto accidents in this country, I have to wonder - do you cry when you see a beautiful classic car?
Not because it is a beautiful classic car, but rather because it represents the carnage perpetrated upon our children by the 'car culture'. The culture that has the nerve to make light of those death machines by customizing them, racing them, by enjoying the driving of them.....
Get over yourself dude.
It seems impossible for you to argue in anything other than straw man. Oh well...
It seems impossible for you to figure out what a straw man actually is.
This is a straw man argument....
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Agree or disagree?
Agree. Now make a logical diagram of your position. Do the same for my argument. Compare.
Actually, incorrect. In your description Y is false, not X.
Uh...which is it? You seem to have trouble making up your mind or not understanding what a straw man argument is. Did you read my link above?
Typing on the phone, correcting error ' can be difficult. I could have just said fuck you, wrong and let you figure out what you did wrong. But I was simply pointing out that you made a transcription error.
So now that the stupid minutia is done, how about focusing on the point?
I did not make a transcription error. Again, I don't think you understand what a straw man argument is. We can't proceed until you accept the facts of this logical fallacy. Again, the link..
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
From the link...
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man
Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
Another link..
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man debate takes the following form.
1st person puts forward argument A.
2nd person puts forward argument B which alters argument A misleadingly.
2nd person refutes argument B.
It appears superficially that argument A has been refuted.
Another link...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Do you accept these facts?
Do you see how your additional text on this post changes the meaning of what you said?
You're dodging again, GD. It's a yes or no question. Do you accept that this is the definition of straw man?
Oh for fucks sake mark, I already said I did. Will you now make a logical diagram of your position compared to mine and quit your dodging
Alright, let's begin with my original argument (A).
It's this kind of deafness of tone that is eroding support for a very much outdated ideology.
You then responded with a series of questions (not really a counter argument, btw) in which you mentioned my "ignorance of guns," a mantra of "too many guns" and people coming to take guns. All of these are B as they had nothing to do with my original point which was about deafness of tone in terms of PR about Gun Safety.
I then re-explained my point (A)
I don't think that with the amount of gun violence we have in this country that making jokes like this is helpful. If anything, it desensitizes people to gun violence and makes them think that the sort of behavior illustrated here in this graphic is light and OK.
You then responded with an argument about cars (B). This is a classic straw man and parallels the argument in my second link above. We aren't talking about cars, we are talking about guns, specifically the deafness of tone and the bad PR of this graphic.
So to recap,
I put forth an argument about deafness of tone and bad PR
You altered my argument, misleadingly, with my alleged ignorance of guns, too many guns, people coming to take guns, and how cars are worse than guns and why I'm a not crying about them?
You then refuted this argument.
And thus it appears that my original point has been refuted.
Of course, it hasn't. This is what you guys at TSM do all the time. When you get trapped with something that makes you look really, really bad, you employ a series of logical fallacies ("pedantic, semantic arguments seem to the weapon of choice") in a, quite frankly, pathetic attempt to erode a fact which terrifies you. You guys really suck at actually defending something. I haven't seen any of you do it with even average skill yet. You simply can't resist fallacy and personal attacks. And you claim to be logical, rational and fact based...
Respond to my original points without redirecting the conversation. You think this graphic is funny? Why or why not?
Yes, let's begin with your original argument, which is not what you just said it was. This isn't the first time we've ever had a conversation about guns. Yeah, there's a little carry over there. EXACTLY like your response had carry over from previous conversations. Hell, your original post has carry over, including your tags for it. Don't try to play this post off as if it stands alone.
But if we look at what you claim your 'original' point is:
"my original point which was about deafness of tone in terms of PR about Gun Safety." (Which was so obvious...and which you had to explain further.)
My point stands re: Gun safety - you have limited knowledge of guns and gun safety, making your pronouncements of such rather useless.
Then you followed up with:
"I don't think that with the amount of gun violence we have in this country that making jokes like this is helpful. If anything, it desensitizes people to gun violence and makes them think that the sort of behavior illustrated here in this graphic is light and OK."
Counter argument presented (which you have ignored): "That's because this graphic IS NOT in any way and by anybody except the clinically humourless an attempt to illustrate gun safety....."
After ignoring said counter, you go on to focus on a secondary argument, which was an analogy of your argument.
Definition of analogy: Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
Now, I had asked you to logically diagram your position, then do the same to mine and compare. Apparently you are unable to do that....
So let's see what your position looks like logically:
How many people have died already this year from gun accidents? How many last year? It's this kind of deafness of tone that is eroding support for a very much outdated ideology.
I don't think that with the amount of gun violence we have in this country that making jokes like this is helpful. If anything, it desensitizes people to gun violence and makes them think that the sort of behavior illustrated here in this graphic is light and OK.
Breaking that down into something more compact:
How many people have died already this year from gun accidents? How many last year?
I don't think that with the amount of gun violence we have in this country
OK. Gun accidents, gun violence...and dead people.
Seems your argument is that because of guns we have dead people. Check.
Next:
deafness of tone
making jokes
light and OK
Con't...
...Con't
Seems to be that you are saying we can't do anything light hearted regarding guns because of the dead people caused by guns. Check.
Your argument logically is thus:
Guns cause dead people. Because of dead people don't make light of guns.
Or:
Guns->Dead people
Dead people->Don't make light of guns.
Or:
Guns(A)->Dead people(B)
Dead people(B)->Don't make light of(C)(Cause of dead people(A))
Or:
A->B
B->C(A)
Granted, it's not very good logic but then, your argument isn't very good either.
I used a form of logic called an analogy to infer something similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
In the case of your argument I inferred cars, using the similarity that because of cars there are accidents and dead people. Similar to your argument of because of guns there are accidents and dead people.
Plug that similar object into the logical equation and we get:
X->B
B->C(X)
Cars->Dead people
Dead people->Don't make light of (Cars)
Or:
Cars cause dead people. Because of dead people don't make light of cars.
Apparently you don't like this analogy.
Too bad, it is your logic in action.
It is not a straw man, it is a refutation of your own logic. Refuted by yourself when you decided you didn't like the way it worked.
As a P.S. to your finalizing statements:
You simply can't resist fallacy and personal attacks.
Said while giving over a paragraph to personal attacks....
you employ a series of logical fallacies ("pedantic, semantic arguments seem to the weapon of choice
You use "pedantic, semantic arguments" like it's a bad thing.
Well, it would be except when having to argue with people who are the exact opposite. Hint- that would be you.
Let's look at what the antonyms to those words are:
Pedantic, antonyms: plain, simple, imprecise, informal
Semantic, antomyms: solecistic, ungrammatical
Yeah, imprecise and solecistic. Can't help but argue pedantically and semantically when face with someone who is imprecise and solecistic.
Just like this:
Respond to my original points without redirecting the conversation. You think this graphic is funny? Why or why not?
Hmmm, strange but nowhere prior to this did you ever even mention that your original point required me to answer whether I personally felt this graphic was funny - or that your original point required me to explain why or why not. Are you changing the goal posts again?
Ah, so this is an opinion of yours that doesn't really matter but the rest of your comments do matter and are relevant? Let me guess, the non sequitur nonsense and continued genetic fallacy that you have employed here in an attempt to cloud the fact that you had a decidedly emotionally response to this post is the relevant part.
If this graphic is "IS NOT in any way and by anybody except the clinically humourless an attempt to illustrate gun safety," then what is it attempting to do? It's titled "Top Ten Gun Safety Tips." If this is a joke, then why do you find it funny?
See, there you go again.
Redirecting.
At what point in the last 21 comments has it been at issue whether I think this is funny?
We've been discussing many things and now you pull this redirect and claim this B.S. irrelevant claim.
Do you want to talk about my opinion of the cartoon now?
Are we done discussing your thoughts of it?
Have you given up claiming I straw manned your argument?
Sure, if we are ALL done with the other discussion I will gladly talk about my opinion. But not if it's some sort of redirect.
At what point in the last 21 comments has it been at issue whether I think this is funny?
Since the beginning of the discussion. I suppose this is one of those opinions of yours that is irrelevant, no? Do you think it's funny-yes or no? Enough with the dodging, GD. I've already explained that I don't think it's funny at all and is extremely tone deaf. What do you think?
I'm probably going to turn this into a post at some point but here's the pattern that you and other conservatives follow consistently.
1. You are presented with an unpleasant fact about your ideology and/or the people that support it. '
2. You quietly shit yourself and realize just how fucking bad this makes you guys look.
3. You realize that this fact is indefensible so you quickly redirect to the person presenting the fact, in this case me.
4. You present a series of logical fallacies and imperial declarations that are complete nonsense. The focus here is completely on the presenter, not the fact itself because that would mean looking bad.
5. When called on it, you simply revert to asking question after question (as you have above) filled with nonsense, knowing that the presenter won't answer, and then, when the presenter tries to get back to the fact, you accuse them of dodging and not answering questions.
6. Rinse and repeat.
It's OK if your side does or says stupid things/makes mistakes. Democrats do it all the time (e.g. Buck Johnson and Guam tipping over). The president does it (you can keep your insurance, military assaults on women getting worse on his watch).
You have to get off of this bizarre idea that admitting fault in one area means your entire ideology falls apart. In fact, by not admitting fault with anything in your ideology, it really makes it look like you have plenty to hide. Of course, this makes a lot of sense because there is a veritable mountain of bad ideas with conservative ideology so, in some ways, I can see why you behave the way you do.
I want to see you own some of the bullshit from the people you support, GD. People like the ones that think this sort of graphic is funny. Is that you? Why or why not?
Dude that was a complete wall of nonsensical mouth foaming mental masturbation.
Not a single bit of it reflects reality. From the first bit about any part of this thread being contingent upon my opinion of the cartoon through that whole bullshit armchair psychologist bit to the end where you think that I'm somehow refusing to admit fault.
No, fuck you Mark.
I simply refuse to let you try to redirect what this conversation has been about FROM THE FUCKING BEGINNING. Which at no point whatsoever was about what I thought about the cartoon - and the entire time - including the part where YOU saw fit to post it and comment about it - has been about YOUR opinion of it.
As I said - and I'll repeat for the chronically stupid - I will gladly comment upon what I think about it - AFTER we are all done with the other discussion.
All you needed to do was say we are done with that other discussion. That we are done with your B.S. accusation of straw manning and discussing your opinion of it.
But you couldn't just do that could you?
Nope, you posted a whole shit load of personal attacks because YOU just can't READ what I said and take that at face value. You can't READ that I won't dance to your little redirect tune.
You didn't reply to my post that dissected your logic. Instead you want my opinion on humor....
What does that say other than - redirect?
So, are we done with your little B.S. straw man argument? Are we done discussing your opinion of the cartoon?
Or are you going to continue with your little fantasy arguments?
Actually, GD, it's all part of the same, ongoing conversation. By your highly emotional and illogical response here, it's evident that I hit the (ahem) mark. Your comments in total more or less confirm what I have been asserting so there's really no need to respond further.
Imperial declaration.
Deny.
Attack.
Redirect.
Projection.
Good job.
Post a Comment