SAY.........please shut up.

Off Topic
21

scall:

I understand you were trying to make a somewhat sardonic remark when you said, “You actually make me question the first amendment,” but come on, that’s not the best way to present a proclamation of this sort. You call yourself a democrat, implying your opponent is something else, while arguing for what essentially amounts to a mild form of censorship without making any effort to reconcile the two rather contradictory positions. This effectively undermines your position from the start even if it is somewhat beside the point you are trying to make. I’m sure you realized this as soon as you posted. You are no more guilty of this practice than anyone else here. How 'bout a change?

ALL:
While childish debates were certainly amusing to watch for a while, and even participate-- I admit it-- they grow more irritating with each post. This forum looks more like a list of examples for logical fallacies than an actual intelligent debate. Can we all agree to make some effort to keep any debates somewhat civil and logical? Is this too much to ask? This goes for everyone. If your view is so correct and factually supportable, demonstrate this with a logical argument supportable by citable and credible sources. Nothing “just is” because you “know it” or “feel it”. If your opponent engages in garbage attacks, call him/her on it and explain why it is such. Do not respond in kind, or else you appear just as stupid regardless of the viewpoint you represent. Like math class, it doesn’t matter if you have the “right” answer if you didn’t arrive at it through logical reasoning. Rather, you appear just as unintelligent as one who arrives at the “wrong” answer through equally specious reasoning. I have one other point, NO MORE AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS. It doesn’t matter if your opponent “started it”. When you indulge in it, you look just as stupid as they. Furthermore you undermine your own argument in the reader?s eyes.

This is not directed specifically at scall, usgg or anyone else per se, rather it is an exhortation to all who read it to improve their own arguments not just for their audiences sake, but their own. I would hope we could all make progress towards this goal.

–Somehow I just know that this argument is going to be followed by attacks ignoring the entire point of this…?

None of this isn?t intended as sarcastic vitriol.

cupcake:
Amen.

22

To Mckee,

No attacks just some defense. If individuals cannot see the humor in my posts, sardonic, sarcastic, or ironic then they deserve to pull their hair out over some of my posts which I do admit to loving. First off I never claimed to be a democrat, I am a proponent of democracy however. Secondly on my serious posts I do not make personal attacks, I stick to facts which is more than the majority of people do (whether it is not knowing the defintion of WMD, or terrorism, or even making ridiculous claims of death tolls). Finally I do feel it sad when an individual blindly follows another and implies the copy & paste debate strategy, case in point Say with Chomsky. If Chomsky claimed that the sky was falling Say and chicken little would come running down the street.

23

scall:
I meant “democrat” in the Jefersonian context, not as a political affiliation. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

24

Let’s let this post die the death it should have so long ago.

25

Why it is so fun.