John, I like how you’re ignoring valid points made by posters in this thread…and the last thread as well. How are we to conclude otherwise that you’re not an idiot? It’s not an ad hominem attack if it’s true. Has it been proven to be a false statement? No, you only keep validating our views that you are an idiot by your endless drivel about how “SUV’s suck” and that “People who drive them are (frequently) poseurs and macho assholes who want to intimidate other drivers.” This is your opinion. Provide a solid fact that this is true, and maybe we would stop calling you an idiot, because right now it seems very obvious to all but you how you’re presenting yourself. So get off your ad hominem high-horse bullshit and defend your opening statement.
In order for there to be a “straw man”, there must first be an argument to distract from (that’s what a “straw man” does).
You original argument was “SUV drivers are frequently poseurs and macho assholes”. This has been shown to be an assholic train of thought (if you can, indeed, call it “thought”). So, therefore, there is no more argument… unless you wish to bring in any more topics of discussion.
However, seeing as how you AREN’T bringing in any new material, and seeing as how you’ve chosen to ignore everyone else who brings in a topic of discussion (guising your idiocy with well-known terms of debate fallacies which, I may add, don’t apply to the situation), I must conclude that you are simply trolling.
Tell you what, fatherjohn.
If you bump this thread one more time by quoting someone, then deleting the content of the quote and replacing it with your own drivel, THEN adding absolutely fuck all to whatever “debate” was going on, you’ve got some 'splaining to do.
Well, shit- that’s what he’s been doing since the OP- that a rant? I don’t think so- just the original bump to the thread- I doubt he has feelings on SUV’s one way or the other, he just saw the previous heated thread, and thoguht it was a good topic to start something with. And to show off his 6 or 7 words of latin.
I don’t know what you mean by “you’ve got some 'splaining to do” - am I being warned here?
Honestly, I believe that my style is appropriate given the forum and given the vitriol of my “opponents.” But if you are officially warning me, of course I will desist.
I just moved from Denver, arguably the SUV capital of the world, to Orlando, where hulking four wheel drive vehicles are much less common. You move to Denver, get your SUV, get your chocolate Lab, and get an REI menbership – it’s just what newcomers do in an attempt to adopt their idealized image of the “Colorado lifestyle.” I gotta’ say that driving is much more enjoyable in Central Florida than it is at the base of the Rockies.
No, I’m not saying that all SUV drivers are assholes. However, it seemed like a higher proportion of SUVs, compared to conventional autos, drove as if regular cars did not exist. Tailgating, forcing lane changes, and not slowing down to let you onto I-25 at an entrance with a short acceleration lane were just a few things that SUV drivers seemed to do more than those driving cars. Once, a date cited my lack of an SUV in rejecting me.
Although it’s not always true, a vehicle more often than not reflects the personality of its driver. See a Camero, and you think of a mulleted trailer trash dude blasting Synyrd on the Delco or Vinnie making his way to the gym. See a boxy old Volvo, and follow them to their UU church. See a Subaru Outback, and assume that the driver doesn’t shave her legs. See an SUV, and think the driver’s an arrogant asshole. Many stereotypes are rooted in some fact, and there has to be a reason for the assumed SUV-asshole correlation.
Then why the fuck do you keep repeating the same bullshit about how “SUV’s suck” and “People who drive them are (frequently) poseurs and macho assholes who want to intimidate other drivers”. Back up your statements, or shut the hell up already.
I don’t think you get it. You’re not ‘winning’ anything, so I don’t know why you posted a score of some sort. I want to know why A) You’re so vehemently opposed to SUV’s and their owners, B)Why you’ve ignored people who have provided valid points opposing your position, and C)Why you’ve reposted something identical to a thread you’ve posted just a couple weeks ago.
I’ll repeat myself: Back up your statements, or shut the hell up already.
An unprovable statement and matter of opinion. Useless for a debate.
Just plain wrong, as has been pointed out to you in the other thread. Yet you ignored that thread like the pansy you are and started another thread.
Also a useless point for a debate. The existence of a website does not prove a thing. Or have you seen David Duke’s website recently?
Idiotic comparisons. Useless to a debate.
Useless to a debate. Your opinion, nothing more.
See above.
Pointless statement. Lexus’s are in the minority of SUV’s owned. Like pointing at tomatoes and saying that all plants are red.
Basically, every “point” you’ve brought up is useless, meaningless, pointless, and idiotic.
In addition, I really loved this…
“Vitriol”? Us? You post an OP like you did, attacking a HUGE group of people based on your small-minded, petty opinion that you garnered from a SATIRE site, and then you can DARE accuse us of “vitriol”?
Dude, you’ve got issues. The fact that you still believe that there haven’t been any salient points raised against your bias indicates that you are in a hefty state of denial.
You might want to update your definitions there a bit, fatherjohn. According to my handy-dandy Webster’s New World College Dictionary (Third Edition), the definition of ad hominem is: 1) Appealing to prejudice and emotion rather than to reason; 2) Attacking the character, motives, etc. of an opponent rather than debating the issue on logical grounds.
I would submit that everything you brought to this thread so far appeals to prejudice and emotion, rather than to reason. If you don’t see this, you’re a moron. (And no, I’m not attacking you with that statement; I’m asserting a fact.) Of course, ad hominem attacks are only relevant when an actual debatable argument is in place. That is not the case here. So who has destroyed whose argument?
I’m trying to understand your need to continue this pointless blathering. Was your mother frightened by an SUV while you were in utero? Did an SUV steal your girlfriend in high school? Was an SUV promoted over you at work?
Tell you what … if you want to debate about SUVs, reply to this post with a position statement on the subject that doesn’t appeal to prejudice and emotion (surely you can see how your “SUVs suck” won’t work here). We’ll go from there.
Good luck on getting a response, Philster. fatherjohn seems to be good at arguing for arguments’ sake, but a little weak on providing actual stats and facts to back up his arguments.
In the original thread on this subject, I took information from cites provided by him and one of his cohorts. This information directly contradicted their arguments. He never responded to those posts. He prefers to scream his opinion over and over, regardless of its relevance in the argument itself.
Clever lad. I was saying it in my official capacity, but I wasn’t warning you - just yet. My warnings typically contain a conjugation of the verb to warn.
There are no rules against “venting” as you’re doing currently. But continuously quoting other posters, replacing their quoted words with terms as “Inane drivel deleted”, and then adding nothing of your own but a variation on the term “Neener-neener”? Sure, pal. Keep that up, and we’ll “warn” you alright.
I don’t see how anyone could seriously dispute that the following QUOTE meets the above definition:
“The term “idiot” is meant to be a derogatory term. But not racially derogatory. Some people might say that regardless of what this disclaimer says, it makes fatherjohn look bad. Well, I hate to break it to these people but fatherjohn is not the only person on this planet who is an idiot. Some white people are idiots. Some black people are idiots. Native Americans? Some are idiots. Some Europeans are idiots!! And, if you open your eyes, you might notice that a whole lot of the idiots out there aren’t even fatherjohn! The “idiot” really refers to their mental capacity. It’s not about whether they’re fatherjohn, it’s about their idiocy!”
:rolleyes:
by the way, I have no problem, in the “Pit,” with ad homonem attacks per se. But if you do it, and then deny it, ol’ fatherjohn may decide to demonstrate your folly to the world. BWAHAHAHAHAHA
So this isn’t Great Debates. So what? This is still the Straight Dope Message Board. See the subtitle? “Fighting Ignorance since 1973”? Bringing up a single example and using that to inaccurately characterize an entire classification is hardly pertinent to “Fighting Ignorance”. Seems more along the lines of SPREADING Ignorance.
Secondly… what does it matter what it’s used for? It’s none of your fucking business. I know people who go off-roading in a freakin’ decade-old Civic. Are THEY “poseurs” for trying to pretend they’re driving something they’re not*? Hell no. It’d be ludicrous to even concieve of that notion.
Have you ever sat in a Lexus SUV? Damn comfortable vehicles. Not exactly my cup of tea, but damn comfortable. Do you have some sort of grudge against comfort, Ol’ John?
*Note: I mean to say that a civic was not originally intended for use off-road. Surprise, surprise, things occasionally have more uses than what was originally intended!
Good Lord, man, are you honestly that dense? Do the terms “scarcasm” and “irony” mean anything to you?
I took a quote YOU PROVIDED as a buttress for your ridiculous position and changed the wording to show you how offensive that quote was. Can you understand that?
My point was you have engaged in ad hominem attacks repeatedly; in fact, that’s the basis for your position in both threads on this subject that I’ve seen. For you to complain about someone using this tactic as an example against you is the height of hypocrisy.
But hey, it’s your OP. Feel free to debate about debate tactics rather than what you’re supposedly ranting about. I’ll beat you either way.
Just so it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle, I’ll reiterate my challenge that actually DOES relate to your OP:
Of course, that should be “sarcasm” in my previous post. :rolleyes:
I suppose “scarcasm” is the result of wounds suffered in a verbal confrontation with Dennis Miller.