darkOne
Entropy Incarnate
@MoonGazer Lunarium
>”I never said I could diagnose people on the net”
>”Grimdark = Sadistic Personality Disorder”
Oh, that’s some impecable consistency.
>”I’m no longer responding to you, you obviously have no real idea what a “Thought” is nor how to actually debate without screeching like a hurt canine.”
>”Take you for instance. I have questioned something you like, support and consume and you have become immediately hostile [no-one actuallly became hostile] towards me just for stating an observed fact with a source to back up my claim.”
Remember kids: if you use ad hominem to counterargue someone else’s position, you’re doing it right.
>”The reason i never gave a response to you is because the action you requested me to do I cannot fufill because i have no real way or knowledge of how to prove my point on your grounds.”
Okay, so the reason you can’t consider this a proper debate is because you lack the knowledge of a certain concept? So, if i bring up some phrenological argumatation in favor of a racist agenda, then say that i “cannot recognize you points because i have no real way or knowledge of how to prove my point in your grounds” after you tried to disprove me, that would be more of a valid “debate”?
>”You have no base for argument if you’re dismissing evidence.”
>”If you want to start a debate, the first thing you DON’T do is completely dismiss the entire argument and evidence given.”
My entire point is to accomodate your evidence, as i said again and again. “People who are likely to sexually harass are going to seek agressive pornography”, to quote my earlier posts. In which part did i dismiss your evidence? I’m trying to contextualize things. The problem is that you are seeing all this in a very bad-faith perspective. You are only throwing around data, with the purpose of building your own Strawman claim, which is the stigmatization of people that you can’t even prove will actually act on their “sick fantasies”.
>”I will not respond to you further.”
>”I’m no longer responding to you […] Good day.”
That’s some great debate skills. You can’t be wrong if you ignore other people’s points, afteral. Good one, pal. I’ll start using this method as well, then i’ll start to have those natty e-debate wins.
Oh, but you never stoped responding, did you? That’s odd.
>”I never said I could diagnose people on the net”
>”Grimdark = Sadistic Personality Disorder”
Oh, that’s some impecable consistency.
>”I’m no longer responding to you, you obviously have no real idea what a “Thought” is nor how to actually debate without screeching like a hurt canine.”
>”Take you for instance. I have questioned something you like, support and consume and you have become immediately hostile [no-one actuallly became hostile] towards me just for stating an observed fact with a source to back up my claim.”
Remember kids: if you use ad hominem to counterargue someone else’s position, you’re doing it right.
>”The reason i never gave a response to you is because the action you requested me to do I cannot fufill because i have no real way or knowledge of how to prove my point on your grounds.”
Okay, so the reason you can’t consider this a proper debate is because you lack the knowledge of a certain concept? So, if i bring up some phrenological argumatation in favor of a racist agenda, then say that i “cannot recognize you points because i have no real way or knowledge of how to prove my point in your grounds” after you tried to disprove me, that would be more of a valid “debate”?
>”You have no base for argument if you’re dismissing evidence.”
>”If you want to start a debate, the first thing you DON’T do is completely dismiss the entire argument and evidence given.”
My entire point is to accomodate your evidence, as i said again and again. “People who are likely to sexually harass are going to seek agressive pornography”, to quote my earlier posts. In which part did i dismiss your evidence? I’m trying to contextualize things. The problem is that you are seeing all this in a very bad-faith perspective. You are only throwing around data, with the purpose of building your own Strawman claim, which is the stigmatization of people that you can’t even prove will actually act on their “sick fantasies”.
>”I will not respond to you further.”
>”I’m no longer responding to you […] Good day.”
That’s some great debate skills. You can’t be wrong if you ignore other people’s points, afteral. Good one, pal. I’ll start using this method as well, then i’ll start to have those natty e-debate wins.
Oh, but you never stoped responding, did you? That’s odd.
