The Glade 4.0

Ah. So I should ignore all past behavior and treat every single post from him as if it exists in a vacuum? This is silly. Of course I can use his previous posts as a guide to interpreting his intent with current posts.

Dude, you need to get over stuff. You care waaaaay to much about what anon people on the internet say about you. Just let it go already.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

As for the "we" this is based on conversations I've had with other individuals on the glade. "We" does not include all members of the glade, but does include multiple people who are free to identify themselves if they like.

Not sharing his identity is fine. He's free to be anonymous if he wants. I don't have a problem being anonymous--but when you use that anonymity to abuse others with impunity, it becomes another matter entirely.

This is another strawman. No one said you had to ignore his past posts. However, that does not mean you get to manufacture arguments out of whole cloth because they're somehow you "interpreting his intent."

It may, in fact, be that his past behavior indicates that he thinks all Obama supporters are idiots, but even if that's the case, that doesn't mean he thinks they are idiots because of this one blog post; that would make no sense since he obviously thought that before the blog post was made. Rather, he thinks that the blog post is indicitive of what he's already seen from Obama supporters, in which case your argument is A) a strawman and B) pretty weak, because simply pointing out that this blog post alone is not a reason to think Obama supporters to be fools does absolutely nothing to dispel that notion for those who already think they're fools anyhow.

Or, to put it more succinctly, instead of trying to stage a preemptive strike on what you're assuming Nitefox's unstated position to be, why don't you try addressing the actual blog post he cited?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You need to look up what a strawman is.

Attacking an individual point and indicating it is the WHOLE of the argument is using a strawman tactic.
Just because someone attacks an individual point, doesn't mean they're using strawman tactics. (attacking an individual premise that is the foundation for the rest of the argument, is not using a strawman tactic either.) As indicated earlier, I AGREE that Joyner's statements are idiotic and repulsive.

So what do you think I'm actually arguing against? The only thing my post attacked was the concept of using this one person's speech as indicative of anyone else who supports Barack Obama's belief.

again: it is NOT a strawman to address an individual point. Nor have I held up the argument I've made to defend Obama, or anyone else, or refute a statement that all Obama supporters are idiots. I've simply stated (with sarcasm) that this particular quote isn't indicative of ANYTHING other than there's a vocal idiot with a pulpit who happens to come down Pro-Obama.

Everyone in this thread who is acting like a twelve year old, just stop it...

You know who you are.

No, I don't need to look up a strawman. A strawman is distorting or caricaturing an argument, or attacking an argument your opponent clearly has not made, unless you can actually demonstrate that what you're attacking logically proceeds from your opponents arguments. Attacking part of the argument as if it were the whole is just one way to distort the argument.

More importantly, since Nitefox has made no argument at all, and you'ree just assuming it, you are definitely strawmanning.




Again, you ignore the fact that Nitefox made no argument.



Why did you bother attacking that? No one made such a point. Don't bother telling me you were just attacking the idea in the abstract, you already clearly indicated you were just assuming that was what Nitefox was saying.



Again: All this is irrelevant. You cannot attack a point your opponent hasn't made, then claim it's not a strawman because it's an "individual point" while completely ignoring the fact that they haven't made the point, or indeed, any argument whatsoever. It's the most blatant strawman possible; attack what you assume your opponents position is going to be, stating it in the most ridiculous terms possible, even when they haven't said anything yet!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE:

The fact that you have asserted that the Earth's moon is a gigantic helium balloon populated by pygmy dinosaurs has invalidated your entire argument. Just admit defeat, retract, and flee the thread.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

heading him off at the pass, before he can make the argument works for me too. I was content to prevent him and others from using this thread as yet another excuse to bash "libs"

TheRiov:

Good Lord... you make me want to dip your face in mustard.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Your argument is invalid.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Dude, just shut the hell up. I know I cant be a dick at times, but the thing is...when I am...I just do it. If I don't, I don't. I didn't this time around. Why not just take that as a sign of growth? Or a chance to not poke the bear? We could have all just gone along with "what a dumb *** thing to say and it's a shame so many people see things that way" but no, YOU decided I was starting out in dick mode when I really wasn't.

For future reference supernoggin, if I want to paint with the broad brush, I will. If I want to insult a large group of people, I will. If I don't, don't read anything into it because I had no desire or cause to go that route.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Oh no, not bashing "libs" on the internet!

I think what you've really accomplished is to give everyone more ammunition to bash "libs". Evidently Monty is not the only hyper-sensitive liberal out there.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think the take-away point from this thread is that Nitefox is a bear.

Damnit! I knew my history of asserting the completely preposterous would come back to bite me in the *** some day!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

[ATTACH]746[/ATTACH]

I liked this one.

You are the bearger king.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

12 year olds think they're sophisticated 25 year olds and **** awesome like James Dean with Wolverine claws.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Why bash "libs" when you can give Riov a hard time. He's so sensitive, it just makes you want to keep bugging him.

I just dislike idiots. "Libs" or "Reps" or "Dems" or "whigs" or "carpetbaggers" can all be idiots, but all (etc) aren't automatically idiots.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I know Khross. I have seen his CV. He is therefore not totally anonymous.

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!

Is being a hot chick on it?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Looking for a good excuse to justify your man crush on Khross?

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

And Khross is a hot black muslim chick who teaches economics.

Man, the things you can learn about folks!

_________________
Hokanu
Duty is a magnificent blessing because it is the sign of trust from the universe.
END OF LINE.