Captain Overinflated Ego: Oh, I say oh it is to sigh, I have been cut to the quick and embarrassed! Indeed, thou hast embarrassed us both! Woe! Thou hast not engaged in a detailed logical discussion with a lunatic racist conspiracy theorist, in the Pit! Dost thou not comprehend what the Pit is for? Verily, it is the very place for detailed, logical discussions. I shall now tisk at you! Worry not, my horse is high enough that I cannot comprehend let alone be perturbed by your responses, peon!
Oh, and yet again, asshole:
So not only can you not find one single instance where I was “ill informed”, not only did you miss the glaringly obvious example of the cum hoc fallacy, not only did you miss the wealth of information I presented on the Talmud in context, you’re too much of a simpering wimp to even admit your error. Evidently that really is a rod shoved up your ass, as you don’t seem to have much of a spine.
The best Big Lie is one wrapped around a kernel of truth. Lots of people find this-that-or-the-other about the Fed objectionable. Lots of people recognize that our present American electoral system involves a “wealth primary” that freezes out anyone too threatening to the PTB. Devise an argument to blame the Jews for both sets of problems and you’re good to go.
Yah, and that’s a large part of the point. It’s perfectly possible to have a legitimate debate on proper US monetary policy. It’s perfectly possible to have a legitimate debate on proper US electoral policy. It’s perfectly possible to debate how politicians’ rhetoric and actions do or do not align with the electorate’s wishes, what impact lobbying has on the political process, etc…
But when that’s all tied to Lunatic Conspiracy Theater, there’s no gain in granting those sorts of ideas legitimacy by acting as if there’s a scholarly debate to be had. To CT’ers and the Ignoratti who watch from the sidelines, the mere fact that a debate is possible implies that both sides have their own merits and points. Sometimes ridicule and/or a few dense links for refutations are all that’s required. After all, how many 9/11 Trooth! threads have we had and how often do we hear that people are Just Asking Questions?
Well, credit where it’s due, that was indeed an awesome post. You can’t seem to figure out what mods are given what forums, but that was an awesome post.
It doesn’t matter if venomous wack-a-doodles have posted their tripe here a thousand times before, or how many times it’s been soberly refuted with links and scholarly references.
If, on the thousandth-and-one repetition you automatically dismiss wack-a-doodlery with mockery, you are betraying the intellectual reputation of the Pit.
Worse yet, the vast hordes of the Undecided who stop by will skip right over the polite, non-mocking responses and hone right in on your disrespectful remarks. As a result they will become conspiracy-theory wack-a-doodles just to spite you.
HOME, og damnit! You hone a knife, you home in on an object! :mad: I don’t CARE if they’re close homophones, they don’t mean the same thing.
More on point, I find myself in some sympathy with FinnAgain. Yes, the discussions of monetary history are interesting (hey, I learned a few things), and so are the discussions on whether it’s even possible to fix a system so skewed to those who have, or can get, butt loads of money (that’s the technical term). But having these discussions with someone like **detour1111 **is pointless.
He’s not here to learn anything, he’s here to reveal THE TRUTH, and he won’t listen to any argument or facts contrary to his revealed **TRUTH **because he’s convinced that we’re brainwashed and nothing will convince him otherwise.
Meantime, we’re not going to listen to anything *he *says because we’re convinced (based on his posts) that he’s a Jew-hater who has latched onto conspiracy theory to justify his bigotry.
And we get to point and laugh at each other, and everyone goes home at the end convinced of their superiority, with hopefully an appreciative chuckle or two at a well-landed blow. Well, we do, anyway. I haven’t noticed **detour1111 **landing anything other than his ass flat on the ground.
By the way, BrainGlutton, that post on why the Jews is a masterpiece. I’m sorry I hadn’t read that before, but I don’t venture into Great Debates much.
No, that’s non sequitor, like how our racist OP claimed that the Jews somehow controlled China and offered as a cite a book about how the Jews simply lived there for a long while.
The example of various presidents drinking water is an example of the cum hoc fallacy, which is the same fallacy the racist OP has been using to try to justify the claim that various presidents tried to alter monetary policy and were also subject to assassination attempts as a direct result.
It doesn’t always work that way, though. You are assuming, I hazard, that Detour is mature and of fixed opinions. S/he might not be. S/he may be young and ill-educated and living in a very narrow world. S/he may never have been sat down and told, “These things are lies”, or have learned any history of European Jewry, or, for that matter, banking.
Is responding to ill-education youth with meaningless snarks and insults the best way to fight ignorance? Or are the people who are responding with reason and links and, if not quire respect, at least decency more likely to make a point?
Ah, lord, listen to me, I’m about three words from saying, “Think of the children!”.
One also hones arguments … I think this is a case where the “wrong” words gives an interesting twist. I like the mental image of two debaters, arguments held low and away from the body, slowly circling, waiting for the best opening to strike and hone their arguments on each other.
This is irrelevant. Someone who has a baseline level of perspicacity (not you) would notice that the racist OP has steadfastly ignored or dodged every single clarification, refutation and request for elaboration/elucidation.
Do you possess the common sense God gave goldfish?
Has the OP shown the barest glimmer of being interested in modifying his positions, at all? Has he shown the barest glimmer of even substantiating them? Faced with someone who has no interest in having their interest fought, there’s no way to fight it.
Take your average garden variety idiot with an over-inflated sense of self worth. Like yourself, for example. When someone demonstrates that another person has engaged in the fallacies of non sequitor and cum hoc, someone interested in fighting ignorance might take note of that and recognize that two arguments have been revealed to be fallacious. Someone uninterested in matters more erudite than American Gladiators may respond “oh, so you don’t have a point after all.” That is, against some aggressively ignorant strains of 'tard, the only real answer is to point and laugh amidst possibly lobbing in a few fact/logic grenades just to shake things up a bit.
What, are you still doing this? Go beat up on someone else. Learn what ‘demonstrate’ means, and how to do it. And how to properly quote a foreign language. And at what …no, I won’t be cruel. Just … stop.
You may have missed that back in post 258 I stated that I found the other message board he posts at, and read a number of his (and others) posts. He clearly identifies himself as male and states he’s spent the last few decades looking into conspiracy topics.
So no, I am not making any assumptions. He IS mature (or at least several decades old) and he IS of fixed opinions, and frankly, I don’t understand why you feel that you have to defend him. Although maybe you’re just taking pity on the poor guy. It’s pretty obvious he hasn’t the first idea of how to construct an argument with articulate premises or supporting evidence, and his attempts at insulting or instructing us have been laughable.
He’s too old to instruct and too dogmatic to debate. The only thing left to do is mock, and he provides a lovely, slow moving, witless target.
Ah, that’s right - I’d forgotten. I stand corrected. Still, doesn’t the principle hold? Perhaps I’ve been too strongly effected by the Open Letter in another forum, but I would like to think people can be influence by evidence and reason.
However, I must ask, where have I ever defended either of the Posters? If you review my posts, I think you will agree I have been facetious, not supportive. (I can’t see the entire thread) I admit I was ignorant of the ‘international money interests’ code, but I will not apologize for being fortunate enough to avoid one small example of beastly babbitry.
My point has always been that I was disappointed with some of the responses. The reasoned arguments with cites are admirable, and some of the less patient critiques are very impressive. But some of them are neither.
Because you’re still being aggressively stupid, Captain.
Can’t even bring yourself to admit simple errors and you’re too busy babbling about fighting ignorance in the Pit to look at your own damn stupidity. You actually responded to the fact that the OP bases several of his major points on the fallacies of non sequitor and cum hoc by claiming that wasn’t a point, at all. That’s military grade dumb, right there.
The tard is strong with you.
Just because you’re too dense to understand that someone can demonstrate a principle by analogy does not mean that analogy isn’t a perfectly valid tool to demonstrate a principle. Again, your lack of basic comprehension is nobody else’s fault. Well, perhaps it’s your mother’s fault for drinking heavily while she was pregnant with you, but besides her, it’s nobody else’s fault.
Gasp! Captain hasn’t read the thread for comprehension. I’m shocked! Shocked! Of course, even upon your new revelation, you just try to revise your original claim and ignore the new evidence. Sure, your original argument was based on the OP’s youth and immaturity, and when you find out that neither is the case, well, you just try to rationalize another way to the same conclusion.
And what pray tell have you contributed other than smug idiocy and a demand for admirable cites and logical discussion in a Pit thread started by a lunatic racist conspiracy theorist?
Oh, that’s right, you’ve contributed fuck all, and you’re just a poncy asshole.
