Well, maybe he can tell us what his uncle (who was on Margaret Mead’s staff doncha know) could tell us about how she would define genocide. That should settle the matter, right?
Don’t you mean still?
ISWYDT
(Damnit Discourse)
SOME topics don’t trigger his pedantism. 
Meh. I don’t know if it was being pedantic, or just a particular personality thing where he is unable to understand nuance and meanings that are more subtle. Sort of like Sheldon on “Big Bang Theory”
That’s a mistake. I do the same thing sometimes, but all it does is allow your opponents to cherry-pick which argument they want to respond to, and it will always be your weakest one. If you have a slam-dunk argument in the mix, no one will go near it.
That’s not just an SDMB thing - it’s a general debate thing.
What if he puts a severability clause in the post?
And it doesn’t matter if multiple credible news sites are reporting the same story; it’ll be dismissed if the site you link to is deemed to have insufficient gravitas.
Just needed to get this out, and the original thread wasn’t appropriate for it (see, the Pit has purpose!)
The Venn diagram of DrDeth’s cranium and rectum is about 99% overlap; “willful blindness to anything outside of what he already believes” is kind of the default state.
A most insightful and well-phrased observation. Perhaps someone can adopt it as a permanent sig! 
Very true, but basically just an explanatory footnote to the above.
My cite for the above is whatever time out of my life I’ve wasted trying to have a rational discussion with DrDeth about gun control. But I have since noticed that he uses the same tactics in most of his arguments, not to mention his annoying and contrived orthographic idiosyncrasies. He would certainly claim that “a argument that I have a idiosyncrasy is a untruth”.
I see he has now deleted his post under attack. I would see that as wise, but I suspect he would see it as the result of him being horribly oppressed.
Yeah, in before the bad Dr. demands a new rule that requires all quotes of a deleted post also be deleted.
Also, in before the Dr’s soon te be patented recap of the thread that curiously always finds that it’s his side of the argument that won.
The OP is bigoted as far as I’m concerned. Conflating liberalism with atheism and nonreligious with atheism. Hinting that Democrats are pretending to be religious just to get votes.
And he’s joined (or is it re-joined) the genocide minimizing forces in the First Canadian mass graves discussion.
Agreed, but the OP of that particular thread isn’t @DrDeth, but rather @Velocity. Who hasn’t returned to that thread since July 13, which strikes me as rather trollish.
Nah, Vel isn’t a troll. Just kind of dumb and needs better sources of information. Got the feel of a very sheltered high school student in a conservative part of America.
I’ve never found Velocity to be dumb. He/she does have a history of many threads along the lines of “Let’s discuss this thing about Democrats in a way that portrays them in the worst possible light, but please don’t discuss the fact that the Republicans do similar bad things several orders of magnitude more”, so that thread is right in line with that, but then GD/P&E are filled with similar types of threads by lots of people (probably including me, although I’m not much of a threadstarter).
Not so much trolling as “mild needling”, and nothing that isn’t part of the background noise.
No, @Velocity isn’t stupid. Which is why I think that their thread is trolling; they post a provocative, disingenuous premise, and then don’t stick around to defend or discuss it. I’ll admit that I’ve never noticed any trollish tendencies before from that poster. But the alternative posits a level of ignorance that seems inconsistent with their posting history.