Esprix, tilting at strawmen again

The BBQ Pit
41

Summarize what you think the “other side” is, and provide cites for that conclusion. Y’see, buttfuck, the problem is that you have the mental acuity of a gnat, and as such, you’ve deluded your peabrain into thinking that you’ve actually got a point - other than the one atop your head - to make in this here deal.

'Nother question: Do you actually ever read beyond the first three words of someone else’s posts, and then just make up whatever the rest might be? 'Cuz you yet to demonstrate any sort of reading comprehension in this threa… er… message board.

42

I don’t know what you mean by “glory”.

43

You know, I think it’d be more entertaining if The Ryan were to skip his initial post in future threads, and move immediately on to being all defensive about people misinterpreting him.

Since it’s where every single freaking thread he sticks his nose into ends up anyway, it’ll save time and effort if it just starts there. That way, instead of derailing interesting threads with his incomprehensible drivel, he’ll become more of a vaguely amusing side show.

“I pre-emptively resent each and every one of you for misrepresenting what I’m trying to say in this post! If only you would have had the foresight to understand what I was about to say, you might have realized that I was completely and totally right about everything. Instead, you totally misunderstood what I’m saying, and the point I’m trying to make is that if you’d simply admit that I was about to be totally correct on this issue, you wouldn’t have had to pretend that you didn’t anticipate understanding what I was in the process of thinking about saying.”

44

I didn’t say “glory”, I said glory, and of course you wouldn’t know what I meant until I told you.

I meant that:

is patently false, in every way. Including the copyright claim. :wink:

45

But, but, didn’t you mean “a nice knock-down argument”?
:wink:

46

Impenetrability! That’s what I say.

47

The Ryan:

Seems to me you’re indulging in absurdist logic.

My table has 4 legs.
A cow also has 4 legs.
Therefore my table is a cow.

Some paedophiles like children of both genders.
Bisexuals like adults of both genders.
Therefore some paedophiles are bisexual.
Even still, what the hell is your point? You made some bizarre comment about paedophilia and bisexuals, I want to know why. Not only are you factually incorrect, but I can’t see what purpose saying that could possibly have. What are you trying to prove? I have neither the time nor the inclination to weave my way through your bullshit, so could you tell me what the hell the point was with bisexuals and paedophiles?

48

I can’t see how your first grouping relates to the second. If you restate your second, replacing ‘children’ and ‘adults’ with ‘persons’, then it makes complete sense. Not that it is particularly instructive, nor does it say a thing about bisexuals in general, but I don’t see where the logic is at fault.

  • Most pedophiles have penises

  • People who have penises are called ‘men’

  • Therefore most pedophiles are men

  • Some pedophiles like both genders

  • People who like both genders are called ‘bisexual’

  • Therefore some pedophiles are bisexual

Aside from forming a tenuous connection to an ugly group of people, I don’t see what the big deal is.

49

Some people from New York are homocidal axe-wielding maniacs.

Cheesesteak is from New York. Draw your own conclusions. And note, the first thing a real homocidal axe-wielding maniac would do would be to deny that they’re a homocidal axe-wielding maniac.

So come on, Cheesesteak, are you or are you not a homocidal axe-wielding maniac? :wink:

50

I’m a man, I am also not a pedophile. This is not exactly difficult to say. Pedophiles are a very small subset of the group ‘men’, just as they are likely small subsets of the groups ‘straight’, ‘gay’, and ‘bisexual’.

I may not like the fact that many unsavory people have some descriptors in common with me, but they do. Those common traits don’t make me like them. Those common traits don’t make all bisexuals pedophiles either.

If The Ryan (or anybody) tried to make that claim, he would be wrong. Of course, he’s been spending this entire thread (and most of the other one) saying he never meant to make that claim.

51

That’s the problem. The Ryan spends almost every thread he participates in explaining what he didn’t say while never, ever actually saying anything.

52

That quote certainly does not follow any logic.

But as someone with no dog in this fight, and who just read the other thread after reading the OP, The Ryan, I have no idea what your position is. The others in that thread might not be the most polite debaters in the world – some do seem to be more interested in proving you wrong than in matching wits – I can at least understand their positions.

My two cents: perhaps it would be more helpful to spend less time posting about what the terms “gay rights” or “pedophilia” mean to you and more time making well-reasoned, on-topic arguments.

53

{hee hee!} This is fun!

And The Ryan, I am still waiting for you to retract your scurrilous statement in your OP about me stalking you. You are a petty liar, sir! Off with you!

Esprix

54

Let’s all just copy and paste this as a reply to every post of his until he goes away:

“The fact that I am The Ryan does not necessarily mean that I am always The Ryan in every thread; merely that I am The Ryan in threads in which a post by The Ryan has been posted to every thread in which I post. It’s not my fault that my logic, logic which is solid gold not necessarily in every post, but certainly in every post in which solid gold has been logically applied by The Ryan to that post, is my fault.”

55

I added some of his trademark quotation marks because logic and “logic” mean different things. You should know the difference because The Ryan does.

56

You forgot to add them to the word “logically”. :smiley:

Now that you mention it, random words could have quotes around them too, like “necessarily” and “solid gold” :

>>The fact that I am The Ryan does not “necessarily” mean that I am always The Ryan in every thread; merely that I am The Ryan in threads in which a post by The Ryan has been posted to every thread in which I post. It’s not my fault that my “logic,” “logic” which is “solid gold” not “necessarily” in every post, but certainly in every post in which “solid gold” has been “logically” applied by The Ryan to that post, is my fault.<<

57

Ah, but then again, perhaps we’re not always talking about The Ryan at all…

Yeah, that makes more sense now.

Esprix

58

:smiley:

59

Denis, if you are too concerned about time and hamster energy to actually support your claims, how about not posting at all? That would save even more time and hamster energy. You’re just weaseling.

“Do you honestly think Esprix is not being sarcastic in many of his posts?” No, I’m pretty sure that his responses to this thread have been sarcastic, which is why I haven’t taken them seriously. But if you’re using “sarcasm” as a catch-all escape hatch, that’s quite weasely, and suggest that Esprix is just being a troll. Come think of it, maybe you have a point.

SPOOFE: I take it the rule is that if I post a circuitous post instead of actually stating what my point is, I’m an idiot, and if you post a circuitous post instead of actually stating what my point is, I’m an idiot? “Summarize what you think the “other side” is, and provide cites for that conclusion. “ The other side is, among other things, the quote that I followed with the question “How can anyone say that with a straight face?”, and the quote is the cite. Now, do or do you not find that quote illogical?

“'Nother question: Do“ that makes no sense. Could you speak in complete sentences?
:stuck_out_tongue:

mrsam “You made some bizarre comment about paedophilia and bisexuals, I want to know why.“ If you wish me to explain some comment of mine, you really ought to state what it is and where it was. As I have already explained, I am not going to provide a refresher course in every single statement I have ever said.

Ravenman “But as someone with no dog in this fight, and who just read the other thread after reading the OP, The Ryan, I have no idea what your position is.“
My position is that the SDMB has quite a few people who become quite abusive whenever anyone disagrees with them on a gay issue. An example is Esprix’s ridiculous “logic”.

Esprix “And The Ryan, I am still waiting for you to retract your scurrilous statement in your OP about me stalking you.“ I think I’m starting to understand this game. Now I’m supposed to say something like “No, you aren’t really opposed to people calling you a stalker; you’re just complaining to be contrary”, right?

60

Ryan, tilting at Esprix.

Actually, I’ve enver caught any of your posts, Ryan, but what are you really trying to say here?

I just read Arrogance by (I forget he wrote Bias)

where he thinks male pedophiles are gay and the media just don’t want to admit it.

But, is that your point?
I’m just not getting your point, here, could you be clearer?

And what does it have to do with Esprix?
thank you