# A word from SA regarding the "Insanity" thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 21, 2008, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853 "2008-10-21T04:00:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 27
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/27 "2008-10-21T11:57:30Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > You call me stupid and stubborn for not coming around to your way of thinking when you offer this or that cite or argument, but how many of you have done a 180 in your politics because of this or that reasonable cite and argument posted by **Sam Stone** or **Bricker**? Maybe not those two (that I can remember), but in the past I’ve had changes of heart on issues afer discussions with other posters ( **ExTank** and **Airman Doors** , before I left in 2004, come immediately to mind; I’ve thoroughly reconsidered my views on gun ownership for starters) and I’m finding common ground with **E-Sabbath** in the very thread you link to. The difference is that they didn’t start the discussion with the assumption that everyone who disagrees with them is a petulant moron. You do. Why should we bother talking to you when there’s no evidence that you’ll take anything we say seriously? > [@](#): > > How many of you posess the unyielding blind adherence to ideology that you deride in me? Some, but not nearly as many as you think. Pointing out that your arguments are poorly considered, dishonestly conducted and unsupported by reality is not the same as dogmatically holding the opposing position. And yes, I mean “dishonest”. **mhendo** ’s point here > [@](#): > > My problem with you, and the reason i have come to treat you like an imbecilic shit-flinging monkey, is that you’re not an honest debater. You set up criteria for people to follow in debate, and then fail to follow them yourself; you accuse people of making unsupported assertions, yet such assertions constitute the sole basis of half of your arguments; you refuse to offer evidence or citations for your positions because you find them inconvenient, yet only a bit over an hour ago you made an indignant demand for a citation in another thread. Debating you is like trying to nail jelly to a wall, because you skate blithely past any refutation or rebuttal based on evidence or serious and reasoned argument. …is entirely true. That you believe that you are conducting an honest (if somewhat scrappy) debate I have no doubt. If anything, that merely makes your equivocations all the worse. Case in point: on the Crips and Bloods discussion in the other thread: > [@Starving Artist: Totally Insane? Or Just Almost?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/348): > > Correct me if i’m wrong, but it seems like one of \*\*S&I’s \*\*links does suggest the police are using methods which _involve_ the law. Can’t use gang injunctions if there’s no legal system behind them. > [@Starving Artist: Totally Insane? Or Just Almost?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/starving-artist-totally-insane-or-just-almost/467678/350): > > Sorry, I guess I was taking for granted that everyone would know I was talking about federal laws as those are what I’ve seen proposed. This assumption is also supported by the fact that the Crips, Bloods and similar gangs have infested cities and towns all over the country. > > I suspect that most here know that and are just being dishonest. In fact, **I** suspect that due to media portrayals most people associate the Bloods and Crips specifically with South Central LA unless they live in an area with gang activity and thus direct exposure to them. As such, **RT** ’s point is entirely relevant. So your point is rebutted, and your response is to claim that you were really talking about something different and that we’re all being deliberately obtuse and dishonest in not addressing THAT point. How is that a legitimate point of debate? Your argument is that you can read our minds? Of course your other option would be to accept either that you had been wrong or that you had been unclear in your original statement, something you never (or very rarely) do. That’s what I mean by dishonest. If you want to play the victim card here (“Ooh, the mean widdle libwuls are picking on me”), go right ahead. But don’t expect us to treat you like an adult when you act that way. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853)._