Well, you would say that of course.............

Having said that, I remember lurking this forum at least a year before I signed up I saw one of the old flaming threads that centered around a simple concept that became a ridiculous circular argument, I dismissed the protagonist as a simpleton.

Imagine my self loathing when 2 years later I was actually involved in a similar discussion with the usual moving goalposts.

My internet low point for sure.........

 

what do you expect from a retard ??,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,he is a legend in his own mind,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Oh, Billy... "Go ahead make my day, this is the largest handgun made and it can blow your head clean off." ~Clint Eastwood. lol Well, the quote may not be exact. Which, Clint flick is "He's a legend in his own mind" from? Anyway, great line... :excited:

 

Ha! I call bullshit - Michael... We all know you come here to kick small animals. Don't deny it. :excited:

 

Mmm... Kisses you and unbuttons your blouse.

 

When I get

For simply commenting I am observing a pissing contest.. this tell me he wants to play with me.

I suppose it could be "follow the leader", but being new, I don't know who the "forum leaders" are.

 

Unfortunately indisputable.

What he hoped to achieve with such barrages, unprovoked, I have no idea.

 

My personal observation?

I have seen his type before, and as much as they will deny until they pop a gasket, they are seeking validation and.. oh I don't know, internet "street cred" ?(for lack of a better word I'm not a wordsmith) so they try to appear bad ass on a public forum..
And any display of contrition or civility they usually equate to a display of weakness.
I imagine akin to "Look at me, respect me" sort of thing.

I'm sure someone can put it more eloquently.

But his type is found on many a forum..

And we are just as immature for provoking him. "feeding the troll" as it were.. yes both x_orion and carrie_j were exemplary in their tolerance..

They restrained from playing with the toy.

 

View attachment ​

 

"Dunking"? Is that the word used for it?


I should read that urban dictionary again sometime.

 

I'm concerned about your 'internet lowpoint' - perhaps you need to spend some time 'on the farm'? I can't promise you 'tried and tested' methods of recovery, but I'm not hitting on ewe solely because I'm drunk

 

That, of course, depends on one's own definition of 'playing', no?

 

Thanks for the Friend Request.

I did not say you were weak. I said...Well, never mind....

 

Sadly, this is the end result in nearly every conversation of the modern world. The argument of whether or not someone is a good politician gets reduced to a youtube video of them mispronouncing a word. Whether or not god exists gets reduced to an article of a woman claiming she saw Jesus in a piece of toast. The losing side of any argument has the tendency to focus on the very small things when they cannot win the very large things. In that sense, a reduction argument is no different from an ad hominem argument; both are merely underhanded ways to attempt to turn peoples attention away from the fact that you have lost.

A rant: I think my favorite example of this type of "reduction" argument came from an old newspaper in England, sometime around the late 1800s. I want to say it was "The Sunday Times," but don't quote me on that. Anyway, I was reading a succession of editorials in which there was a rather heated debate taking place about an event from the past. The event was the hanging or beheading of a king. I cannot recall his name, so I will just call him Charles the II.

This discussion went on for some time, but eventually it became very obvious that the side of the discussion which had originally said Charles deserved to be killed had lost all ground was being rather trampled on by their adversaries. I continue to read and soon come to find that the losing side, rather than simply admit defeat, instead focused more and more on the smaller points as they were defeated on the only point that mattered. And so when all was said and done, the final article which was written was a rather large and lavish explanation on which window Charles had stepped out of before he died. And if you read this article, you would have thought "which window" was the only point that mattered, because over a series of articles the losing side had focused so much on this small issue that they had tricked the winning side into debating them on it. And so whether or not Charles deserved to die was of little importance when compared to that awe inspiring question: "Which window did he step out of before he did so?"

And that, was reduction arguing at its finest. A perfect example of why it is the very worst kind of argument, reserved for the very worst kind of intellect.

 

Once I was arguing with a woman about The Bell Curve. As is usually the case in these discussions, she became emotional. As is always the case, I was not. Anyway, I mentioned the Vietnamese refugees who came to the United States after the War in Vietnam. I pointed out that most were indigent. I added that after experiencing war time conditions and refugee camps they had valid alibis for high rates of crime, and inferior academic performance. Finally, I pointed out that the refugees have a low crime rate, and that Vietnamese from the beginning tended to perform better in school than whites.

She asked what the average SAT score is for a Vietnamese. When I answered that I did not know, she thought she had scored a point on me.

In arguing against a point of view one dislikes there is often a tendency to look for any discrepancy in the point of view, and when finding it to claim that the entire argument is invalid.

For example, in The Bell Curve Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein suggest that low intelligence predisposes people to have illegitimate children. I actually read an effort to refute TBC that said the book had to be false, because since 1960 illegitimacy had increased from six percent to over twenty percent, but IQ scores had not declined.

 

You might find that illegitimacy has increased because women are no longer cast out by society for being pregnant out of wedlock. Before the sexual revolution in the sixties, single, pregnant women were often sent away from their families (or to stay with a far-off distant relative), until the birth of the child, when they would return home, after putting the child up for adoption.

I think this still goes on in Southern Ireland, at least to a degree. I do know that up until two or three decades ago, single pregnant females would be sent to live and work for religious orders [nuns]. I also believe that abortion is still illegal in Southern Ireland, and that women seeking abortion are forced to travel to England, and probably Northern Ireland, to have abortions. I'm not 100% certain of my facts on this, though.

 

So heres what I dont get...

St.Louis is #1 for crime in America

St. Louis is notorious for having lots of black people that are poor and are on welfare

The blacks are the ones committing the crimes..

yet they are exempt from being told so because its "not socially acceptable"

but in reality if there weren't so many black people there, St. Louis would probably not be the #1 city for crime in the USA

How does one explain this? Or will you just continue to cry racist even though there is statistical evidence and facts supporting the argument?

 

You did not present any facts just your own supposition.