Now you’re putting words in my mouth. That’s against my rules. You’re banned, fuckface.
Silenus: Oh boy yes, but lets leave that aside for all of our sake.
I can count on one finger how many people can make out your position most times, and that’s only if I count you.
How many other posters have been able to clearly make out your position? When so few posters can actually make out your actual position, it’s time to consider it a problem on your end - not theirs.
It’s not their responsibility to make out a coherent argument from a bunch of wandering, incoherent, and often factually incorrect statements. It’s yours to make concise, clear arguments. If you are the only one who believes your arguments are reasonable, either the entire world is insane or you aren’t as rational as you think.
Oh, and making an additional fake account just to get one bit of additional support? Come on. At least have some pride.
Lol, I quoted you exactly. But anyway, I have no objection at all if you ban me. Bye 
I disagree with you, but I note that this issue is addressed in Rule 3:
That’s brilliant. If you think that I’m consistently incoherent, please don’t bother saying anything about it, just gtfo. What a peach.
What is the penalty for violations - No soup?
Here’s how a discussion with Brazil works:
Brazil: insinuating statement that’s “technically” not offensive
X: ask for clarification.
B: insinuation on a vaguely related subject
X: ask for more clarification
B: moving wildely off topic with more insinuations and implications of intellectual superiority
X: ask for clarification again
B: “you’re trying to trick me into saying something definite”
X: draw most obvious conclusion.
B: I never said that / you’re dishonest. and probably a nazi.
It’s useless.
Lol, I don’t really care if my statements are offensive or not. But I do normally respond in good faith to questions about my position. Sometimes people don’t like the answers, but that’s not my problem.
In your case, I took the position that singling out of Israel generally supports an inference of anti-Semitism. You tried to get me to admit that according to me, holding Israel to a higher standard than one specific country (Angola) would support the same inference. But that’s not my position. I imagine you wish it were my position because it would be easier for you to attack, but it is not. Sorry to disappoint you.
But to your credit, you asked me what my position was rather than just putting words in my mouth as Sherwood Anderson did.
So you agree or disagree that you don’t care about reasoned debate? Telling people to ignore you violates the principles of reasoned debate.
I’ll quote myself:
So, be clear: are you or are you not interested in rational debate?
Far be it from me from putting words in your mouth, so just answer the fucking question.
I disagree.
It seems reasonable to me that if somebody consistently finds another persons statements to be incoherent, that person should be ignored. But what exactly are the “principles of reasoned debate”? If you tell me what they are, I will tell you whether it is consistent with them to suggest that someone ignore you.
In general, yes. But I’m not interested in any kind of debate – rational or not – with people such as Sherwood Anderson who insist on misrepresenting my position. Is that clear?
Then go the hell away and leave the rational people alone! Comprendé? Or do we have to use smaller words?
Not that I’ll get a response from him, but for the record I’d like to point out that this characterization from our dear mud-wrestling pig is factually incorrect.
Brazil84 alleged one occasion where he claimed I had misrepresented him, or engaged in straw-manning as he put it. In response I asked him why he thought there was bad faith involved on my part and offered him an opportunity to clarify his position. At that point he opted to “ban” me and sod off.
So characterizing that as “insisting on misrepresenting” him is clearly inaccurate, even if we assume for the sake of argument that I misrepresented him the first time (arguably not and certainly not by intent). I’d call it a straw-man but I really think “lie” is the more appropriate term.
As far as I can see, you don’t care about people, or reasoned debates, at all.
I did not try to get you to admit anything specific at all. I tried to get you to explain your ideas because your statements seemed either incoherent or extremely disgusting so I took a perfectly logical consequence of one of your statements and asked you if you wanted to stand by it. Only now do you give an answer to that; no. Fine, we’re back to not having any solid explanation of what you DO think, and it just still seems pretty disgusting and incoherent.
Lol, don’t be a sore loser.
Nonsense, you took an illogical consequence of my position.
I’m not sure how many times I need to say it. If you feel I am too incoherent to deal with, just stop reading my posts. I promise I won’t start a pit thread about you.
As far as disgusting goes, I admit that a lot of my views are offensive, especially to Leftists.
This here above is a fine summary of your general style.
I don’t mind offensive views, as long as you can argue them like an adult. You on the other hand seem to be under the impression that being obtuse and incoherent is a winning strategy. I really don’t care what you think until you can at least explain in a reasonable manner what the hell it is that you think.
Let’s do this: Quote the most incoherent statement I made in the Glenn Beck thread.
Oh-oh my spider sense tells me someone’s about to be “banned”
(it’s a trap)
Piss off.
Lol, thank you for the not-so-gracious concession.
Every time you run away like a bitch rather than making an intelligent argument you are capitulating.