Sorry to see that you have encountered the “wisdom” of mswas. It takes awhile but he can learn, the bad news is that he thinks that in a different universe he will remain correct, so even if he learns in this universe, I still wonder if he is a lost cause.
mswas: you are entitled to your opinions but not to the facts, even though I disagree with **FinnAgain ** in some issues, he is supporting his position really well. You are supposed to bring evidence even to support a neutral stance, you are failing on that even here.
By the way, I don’t know why I wasted my time talking to you, again. You’re worthless. This will be my last post to you in this thread.
Um… I noticed. That’s why I said that you ignored factual refutations among other things. Whining about how you didn’t think they were worth while doesn’t change the fact that you ignored them.
Hah. You ignore factual refutations and I’m supposed to be “civilized” by pretending that you’re debating in good faith rather than masturbating like a motherfuck?
Will you continue to debate in bad faith? Something tells me that the answer is yes.
As long as you’re stating lies (and still not apologizing for calling me a racist, you stupid scumfuck), I’ll call you on 'em.
Only whinging cowards fall back on the “it’s just my opinion, everybody has a right to an opinion” gambit. Some things you said were simply wrong, and no ammount of Magick Opinion will change that. That you refused to address where you were proven wrong just goes to show that you’re a waste of post numbers in a debate.
Thanks for your condolences. I can’t recall debating with him in the past, if I have it must not have been that memorable. But this will most likely stick in my mind. All those minutes wasted writing posts…
Evidence that I think he’s an asshole? Umm I think he’s an asshole. There’s evidence for you. What do I need to support?
In the Hamas thread he was providing well cited information, but I felt that it was tangental to what I was saying, and he started to call me a liar, so I decided to drop it because I didn’t want to go through the bother of convincing him I wasn’t a liar in order to get back on track. Of course you agree with him because he’s using the same tactics you use, though you are far more tolerable than he is.
I stated in the thread that I don’t see either side as being better/worse in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. He kept showing me cites of things that happened, but they didn’t ‘prove’ that I was wrong, because I never disputed that any of his cites were true. So what responsibility do I have to it? I read a lot of his cites and I was still not convinced that my interpretation of the events was wrong.
This is a matter of opinion not a matter of fact. It’s not a fact that Hamas is more evil than the IDF it’s a matter of opinion. I’ve argued about this with many people including Israelis who want to convince me that their side is right, but if a Palestinian argues with you they are going to think their side is right, and I have compassion for both, because they are both embroiled in a very shitty conflict.
But all he did in that thread was spout facts at me that didn’t sway my judgement on the issue because he ignored vital aspects of the conflict. It wasn’t a matter of factual assertion because his facts were irrelevant. I never argued that the Palestinians didn’t target civilians. I didn’t argue that Palestinians have been attacking Israelis since before 1948. I never once denied that any of his cites were true. So I don’t see the point here.
You are just liking to jump on me because it makes you feel vindicated because it’s basically the same argument you and I had a couple weeks ago.
If FinnAgain hadn’t been so convinced I was a liar I would have bothered to try and show him where he was misreading me, but he wanted so much to believe I was a liar that I didn’t bother. I gave cites showing that Israelis had killed Palestinian civilians, and he never denied that the Israelis bulldozed Palestinian markets, so the facts simply are not at issue here. What he took issue with was the fact that I wouldn’t choose sides in a conflict, as much as that entertains Gum, though I bet you can’t find a post where I say one side of any war is all good and the other is all evil anywhere.
So I am glad FinnAgain’s plight gives you a feeling of solidarity with him, but you both are kind of in the same boat as far as your immature debating style goes. I haven’t lied to either of you. I’ve made mistakes and I’ve admitted mistakes. You’re the type that makes people regret admitting mistakes because you hold it as some kind of victory and then keep pushing, losing the upper hand you had by being an idiot about it.
I didn’t lie in that thread, but I got tired of FinnAgain’s abuse so I didn’t bother wading through his posts to enlighten him as to where he was misconstruing what I was saying because I felt that any clarification I might give him would be met with accusations of lying, because I felt he desperately wanted me to be a liar because he was disturbed by my stance.
“I didn’t lie, but I couldn’t be bothered to provide evidence because it would not have changed his mind”?
Why don’t you, I don’t know, give him the benefit of the doubt? Take a “neutral stance” on FinnAgain, as you proudly claim to do so consistently? Surely a person judging FinnAgain from a neutral standpoint would have no preconcieved notions of what his reaction to your supportive evidence would be? So you should, from a neutral position, support that evidence.
When I showed him evidence of Israeli vs Palestinian civilian casualties it didn’t sway him much. Anyway, he was trying to factually support a subjective value judgement. How am I supposed to factually support a subjective value judgement?
In another pit thread there was fan of him that admitted he (the fan) jacked off to the posts of others, I will not mention him here, but suffice to say that I have that hand grenade quote ready to reference if he still believes he pwned the skeptics.
Yes it fells that way, but remember that there are others that do read and learn, for them we respond.
In a different thread, I pointed out several mistakes of his and I also caught him lying (on a subject he pretended to be an expert no less). You all have been warned.
That’ll be a fun one as you show that you still don’t get what I was trying to say. I never was trying to pwn skeptics, I was trying to root out FALSE skeptics.
I’m glad you found a buddy though. See I’m a uniter not a divider. ;p
Did he agree with your evidence (i.e. agree it was the case)? And agree it was relevant? If not, you’ll have to work harder to convince him. It might be tiresome for you, but if you genuinely want to impress upon people the effects of their bias you do have to actually debate these things, and expect debate back.
It’s possible he disagreed that it was subjective. Again, if so, you’re going to need to convince him of that, and also respond to his posts trying to convince you of his POV.
Forgot to mention that you considered him a cool guy for defending you, “Tell me who you’re friends are, and I will tell you who you are.”
In any case, since you forgot to mention what party the Israelis that killed Palestinians came from (a good chunk of Israelis are opposed to the current and past government and individual violence against Palestinians) you really are only a skeptic poser.
I did not agree that it proved any point. Moreoever, I took exception to claims such as him stating that Hamas’ actions were only taken because they ‘had their back against a wall’. After disproving it with the fact that even during negoiations for peace Hamas engaged in terrorism, that point was ignored.
Several other things he said were simple untruths, related to that point, like Hamas defending themselves. The fact that they engaged in suicide bombings during negotiations for peace, and thus couldn’t possibly be defending themselves, was ignored.
If proving that Hamas’ actions weren’t defensive nor taken when they ‘had their back against a wall’ wasn’t a response to his claims, I don’t know what would qualify.
And although he claims that he didn’t challenge my facts, merely my paradigm, that is untrue.
That, and of course he called me a racist. There are few things on this earth that I detest more than racism, and I don’t enjoy having people lie and make up things that I’ve said in order to slander me in such a vile manner. You’ll notice that even in this thread all he’s done is to claim he believed I was conflating various organizations. Various organizations are not the entire Palestinian people, and yet he still has neither retracted nor apologized for his slander.
And those are just a few issues. He may now want to cast this discussion in terms of differing paradigms, but the fact of the matter is that he refused to debate in good faith or address factual refutations because the paradigm I was coming from was not his paradigm.
If he’d spent one tenth the time discussing my factual challenges rather than telling me I wasn’t worth responding to, in post after post that he was responding to me in, we could have actually had a debate. Tom and I, for example, have close to wrapped up our portion of the debate and I’d say that, from my point of view, we’ve arrived at some common ground although there are still disagreements.
I did indeed… most people come here to debate and/or to argue. From what I saw of that thread, it seems that he came to that thread to jack his ego off and convince himself that he’s wiser than everybody else. That and hear himself type.
You have a definite point. I guess I’m more disapointed in myself than anything. Dishonesty is probably one of my most major pet peeves, and I let myself get dragged down into addressing him rather than ignoring him, to the detriment of the thread and my argument.
As I mentioned before, the best you can expect is to win the argument by noticing the tactics of the Pittee. He recognizes that his ass is grass in a straightforward confrontation in the Pit. Accordingly, he must resort to attempts to bait people into posting Pit material in GD so as to change the subject of the debate. Fortunately, the second adjective of the Pit title is as accurate as the third.
Does this mean he won’t Pit me for my lack of confidence, lack of ethics, and poor knowledge of grammar? Oh well. I am due for some humiliation that awaits.
