ehervey...

how is suggesting I'm unable to (accurately) attack something I know little about a contradiction. I see you MAKE the claim, but I see you offer NOTHING to "support" such a claim. You just puke it up and you're gone. In your eyes I'm left to believe you consider that a counter, which is partially what I'm getting at. You call that debate. It isn't. It's merely shaking that thick noggin of yours, like a tard might I might add, muttering "nope, you're wrong".

The point I was making was twofold in that in terms of veta's "personal" character. this remains an area I can only surmise and speculate on. I might suggest I have some idea based upon what aren't especially unusual patterns, but that's about it. To attack something so virtual is essentially "swinging at thin air", hence rather futile and irrelevant. Bear in mind my commentary WAS IN RESPONSE to Veta's claim I was committing character assassination. HIS CLAIM, not mine. A claim I'm suggesting is irrelevant, the basis of which I've supported in rather simple terms, by suggesting that character for (1) should not enter into any of it. Joe Douchebrain, champion of mouthbreathers Inc. could posit up a sound argument. HIS CHARACTER places no bearing on the legitimacy of the argument if in fact it is supported by DEMONSTRABLE facts, the same facts others could equally identify. This is elementary when it comes to the basis of applying the method at an almost pre teen level you moron. More importantly, AS ALREADY suggested in my earlier post... (thank you cut and paste)

Any solid sound argument will easily withstand such minor and pitiful attacks such as "character" assassination. It will in fact withstand virtually ALL investigation. If it's genuinely BACKED by demonstrable basic elementary "Facts"...the deeper the investigation into it, the stronger the case becomes without any additional help from the author, because the uncontroversial facts of themselves will be what are found and in turn revealed....

In essence his most recent rebuttal I'm suggesting is in fact .... A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.

That's my counter AND the basis of it's support. I didn't simply caterwaul CONTRADICTION and walk away happy with myself.

You CAN argue what I'm proposing, fine. But you haven't done that.

If it takes you that long to make an assertion it's probably bullshit

Tl;dr

Ganstrrr just made a couple people seem like complete fuckwits. Nice job sir.

"how is suggesting I'm unable to (accurately) attack something I know little about a contradiction."

I can verbally attack things I know nothing about. Often it is the case that we fear what we do not know and attack what we fear. That's just one example where one might attack the unknown. You don't know me Gangster but you do probably have some funhouse mirror idea of who I am/how I behave. I'm going to break it to you, what you know about me is probably bullshit, probably slander. You don't know me yet you insist on attacking my credibility and my character.

"Any solid sound argument will easily withstand such minor and pitiful attacks such as "character" assassination. It will in fact withstand virtually ALL investigation. If it's genuinely BACKED by demonstrable basic elementary "Facts"...the deeper the investigation into it, the stronger the case becomes without any additional help from the author, because the uncontroversial facts of themselves will be what are found and in turn revealed.... "


I wholeheartedly disagree with you here. Maybe it's because I've been around kdice more than you or maybe because I've had more experience in real life than you - but in reality the most sound argument does not necessarily win. Ever heard the term "kangaroo court"? That's what the forums become when every moderator and their friends support their mistakes or credibility. Moderators make mistakes, this was one of them. Defending Sam here is tantamount to participating in the kangaroo court that is this thread. Not going to attack your credibility like you did mine - but I will say I haven't ever seen you give an even handed analysis of one of these arguments. You're always in support of thraxle/jurgen/sam/monte whoever and always with some wall of text bullshit that amounts to SAT words and little to no substance.

"In essence his most recent rebuttal I'm suggesting is in fact .... A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT. "

No, your post was literally attacking me and my credibility - not addressing whether or not this sort of speech by sam falls into the same category as calling someone a faggot or a nigger. I argued that it does. If you can soundly argue that it doesn't I'll change my mind, but about 250 posts have gone by a nobody has been able to claim that.

We done here gangster?

but about 250 posts have gone by and nobody has been able to claim that. **

Veta you are making the assumption that any opposition to your point is fallacious and then ignoring it instead of countering it, that is all Gangstarr is accusing you of. To sum up the last couple of walls of texts.

Your arrogance in your argumentative method is stupid, and you have yet to actually show substantive evidence that stands to the scrutiny of peer review to support your points, which tends to be your modus operandi.

I thought this PSA was pretty good evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T549VoLca_Q

But it really isn't.

I think "faggot" "nigger" and the slurs towards the mentally handicapped are in the same league - generally that's the politically correct consensus anyway. and if we don't care what's politically or diplomatically correct then why do we even ban for "nigger" or "faggot"?