As I see for his reply the only phenomenon observed is that FP is happy to ignore how he is not capable of finding evidence to support his dumb defense of O’Keefe. He is happy to shot himself in the foot.
You’re free to discuss whatever you like, I’m discussing a way to test one of your arguments and it doesn’t really surprise me that putting your arguments to any kind of test disinterests you.
The potential response would have no bearing on my intelligence, be it praise, indifference or instant banning. However, the act of me (or LHOD or anyone, really) posting an anti-O’Keefe opinion on a potentially-unfriendly forum would challenge your implication that we were afraid to do so, no?
I’m willing to risk it. Pick a forum and set it up, or admit you were talking out of your ass, or do nothing and see where that takes you.
Well, it’s an easy enough accusation to make: “You wouldn’t say that to my face! / You wouldn’t say that to the face of someone who wouldn’t like it!”
I was expecting no response at all; was vaguely surprised at how quickly a “Oh, I’m way too busy/important to follow through” response came back.
Unfortunately your high intelligence has let you down in this instance, as you’ve misunderstood the nature of the exchange that you were responding to. It wasn’t all about your fears of posting on unfriendly forums.
LHOD asserted that “most folks” don’t think of him as I do, and I pointed out that one reason this is hard to test is because his ideological alignment with most members of this forum makes people inclined to judge him more favorably than they would otherwise, and that he would be judged more harshly elsewhere.
If LHOD would post on a forum which is less aligned with his views and post in the same manner as he does here, it would follow from what I said that views of him would be considerably less favorable. I doubt if he would want to do that, and for that exact reason.
Since you brought it up, I observed that the same would undoubtedly apply to you as well. If you feel like testing it, that’s your issue. It’s not any concern of mine.
Your response consists of “You’re wrong when you said I said A, because what I really said was A.”
Sure, pal. Sure.
OK, so the bottom line is that you’re unable to distinguish between the following two statements:
[ol]
[li]“If you posted elsewhere the way you post here, people would have a lower opinion of you”[/li][li]“You would never dare post an argument that you’ve posted here in another forum”[/li][/ol]
Doesn’t speak much for your high intelligence. Or surprise me, either.
You’re trying to carve out a distinction of no importance. Isn’t your premise that we’re afraid of posting in another forum because it might or would generate a negative response? Your (2) is meaningless in isolation.
No, it’s not.
My main premise was that public opinion of LHOD in this forum (whatever that opinion might be) is not a good indicator of what public opinion might be in a more neutral forum, let alone a right wing one. That’s the main premise
As it happens, I also think that people like LHOD are probably a lot more comfortable posting in forums where they fit into the mainstream of ideological opinion, since their flaws and shortcomings are much more readily forgiven. So I tossed that in as a side remark. But that was not the point I was making, which was as above.
Even if for whatever reason you do want to focus on that side remark, I don’t think your test would show anything, because going to post one specific argument on a hostile board where you’re not a regular member is very different than being a regular member on a board where people are predisposed to judge you harshly.
But again, that’s a side issue. The real point is that if you posted on a MB to which you’re not ideologically aligned, then people will have a lower opinion of you than on a MB to which you are ideologically aligned. Therefore, citing public opinion on the latter type MB is not a valid indicator of how you might be perceived in a neutral environment.
Shit, dude, you’re still on about this? There are several conservatives around these parts whose opinions are considered and principled and not just the sanctimonious sneerings of a dimwitted chipmunk. If Bone or Bricker tell me that I’m behaving terribly, I might disagree, but I’ll take their opinion seriously. You, though? You’re ridiculous and sad.
I guess your opposition to “second-grade playground intellect” has its limits.
In any event, I think you’ve just picked a couple of names that you know from long experience are not apt to engage in this type of exchange, so you feel safe in using them.
But none of that matters unless we’re afraid of a negative response, i.e. the lowered opinion other posters would have of us, and since you’re disinterested in testing your claim, it’s back to:
You: “You wouldn’t say that if circumstances were different because you’d be afraid of the outcome.”
Us: “Okay, set up a situation where circumstances are different and try us.”
You: “Nope, not interested.”
What are we supposed to do with such an untested hypothetical except dismiss it?
I don’t give a shit about his hypothetical. He’s pitiful. If he needs to keep talking about it as a way to make himself feel less stupid, he can have at it.
You wouldn’t say that if your mother was watching!
And don’t bother offering to call your mom and have her watch, because such displays are beneath me, so there.
Again, you keep trying to structure my point as if it was about what you’d be afraid to do. It wasn’t. I’ve already explained this, and I don’t think any reasonable reading of my words would indicate that my point was about you being afraid of things.
Understood that it would be more convenient for your proposed test if I were saying that, but I’m not, nonetheless.
Why thank you. You are too generous, as always.
But I don’t know if your kindness is necessary at this point. I “keep talking about it” because I’m responding to another guy who keeps talking about it. But truth is that it’s getting a bit repetitious at this point, so I don’t know.
The person making that reasonable reading must have missed post 115, then.
Or correctly read it.
Then the person must be as eager to ignore reality to defend you, as you are eager to ignore reality to defend O’Keefe. Not impossible, of course.
As I said “or correctly read it”. You can always look up “correctly”.
I can’t be bothered… because you’re too obviously wrong.
Anyway, this goes nowhere. Feel free to take the last word, as far as you and I are concerned.
Based on your prior posts to this thread I suppose I should interpret “I can’t be bothered” as “I think it’s beneath me”. But you should try looking up things that you think are obvious - you might learn something here and there.
But it’s nice of you to let me have the last word. I see you nice guys stick together.
Unless your real intention is to have the last word by henceforth pretending to address other people. That’s how the game is played sometimes. Let’s see.