+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
Log In to post a reply
52 messages
View: flat \ threaded

1745 posts

Re: wikileaks.

cyberpainter wrote:
Oh how clever of you. I'm not the least bit interested in staying out of any discussion by way of your "suggestion". And your critique of other people's posts should merit some tolerance of others critiquing yours. Have a nice day.

It was a clever post. That is why you have resorted to sarcasm and refused to be drawn on the substance of my post.
You can criticise my posts all you like, just like Dara and Calapia can too. But don't expect me to agree with you when you are wrong.
The fact is, that saying an argument is a straw man argument is not name calling. To say that I resorted to name calling is wrong. Pure logic.
On the other hand, if I don't agree with the style of argument or the views expressed, then I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are. I am happy to read differing opinions and - unlike you - I am willing to concede when others have a point (see JFK thread). I will present my point of view and you can disagree. I know I have a forthright manner but that doesn't mean you cannot disagree.
Other than calling you Cassius Clay or Sugar Ray Leonard because you always come out punching or your gang "heathers" because you gang up on people and refuse to agree with a single point your "opponents" make, I don't think calling people names is particularly effective. If you look at the extended post from Dara that followed yours chronologically, I would assume his post might at least get a tut tut from you.
But that is the thing, your stance is weakened because you cannot be objective. You have never criticised anyone that criticises me. Moreover, your gang always agree with each other and attack anyone whose expresses views that are not the same as yours. I have seen it time and again.
The straw man case in this thread perfectly exemplifies this stance. Neither you nor Dara have been able to say, "Hey, you were right. Straw man is not name calling. I don't agree with anything else you say but you were right about that one". You continue to attack on different fronts because you cannot beat me in a debate. You never have and probably never will because you have demonstrated an inability to focus on an argument. Check the history of our disagreements and you will see that this is the case (your post quoted here and my previous post could be a place to start. When I used your own words against you, you were powerless). I thought that you had wised up to the fact that you don't have the capacity to argue rationally against me as you haven't bothered to attack for quite some time.
Dara on the other hand takes a disingenuous anachronistic stance and brings up "smartarse" as evidence of my name calling to back his buddy Calapia's claim that I resorted to name calling. Now, I admit it is rude to say smartarse and I probably should have avoided that phrase but it was clearly said after I was accused of name calling. Of course, Dara only brought this up after being slapped down publicly for his "sorry but..." argument. It would be nice just to get the sorry.
Nonetheless, I admit that I should avoid this kind of language as it doesn't help matters. I hope Dara can see this and decides to admit that if he doesn't like name calling, then he should not use phrases like "irksome, arrogant, bad mannered and supercilious, yobbish and opinionated immature narcissist. arrogant complete and utter asshole.arrogant, self aggrandising low standard blindly fawning followers". It would seem that this kind of language gives a person little credibility when criticising another person's manner.
Alas, I am tired of this for now. Dara, you did have some interesting points in your long post and I will repond to them (depite the abuse) at a later date. You shouldn't be surprised to hear that I agree with some of your points. I am a little confused about the "gay scientist working at the SECRET code breaking facility at Bletchley Park, England." so perhaps you could clarify what the scientist's sexuality and code breaking has to do with your points before I reply.

Dec 06, 2010, 12:40


Topic Outline: