His list was already posted and he said “I stand behind them” but refused to “play” anymore when asked for cites.
what do you suggest? he won’t argue the ones he’s already posted.
Gobear, just so you are aware, a quote can both be attributed to some irrelevant pop-culture reference and still make an intentional statement on behalf of the person quoting it.
“Thou loggerheaded half-faced hedge-pig” – Shakespeare. See what I mean?
But again I think you know this. Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. You argue in hyperbole, maintain it is fact under questioning, try to retroactively amend the meaning of your words, make obtuse references to non-existent cites, and then withhold support altogether. And you cry foul when called on it.
As an encore, you hint that you may have made mistakes, yet stomp around like an impudent child and scream that you won’t make the admission because you would prefer to spite the people you are arguing with.
You answer Wring, who has been nothing but patient, with an editorial you don’t even bother to follow up with your own words. The net some of your arguments are editorial! Facts, by the panties of the saints, you confuse opinion and hyperbole with facts.
Excuse me for eavesdropping, I know that this was intended only for wring, but if you have admitted it to her, why are you still arguing the point with autz? Aren’t you worried that autz might have read this as well?
And no, it’s not as simple as genuflecting in front of you and begging your pardon. Look back at the threads linked – look at this thread. When questioned you don’t say, “excuse me, I was engaging in a rhetorical device.” You use the same twists of logic I have already pointed out to defend a hyperbolic position. What is the point of constantly engaging in such bigoted rhetorical devices to begin with?
Actually, Waverly, you’re right. This thread was opened right when I have been furious at events in real life, and I have been unfairly lashing out at you all instead of where the appropriate targets.
As far as your accusation of intellectual dishonesty and your claim of Wring’s patience. she is currently lambasting me for claims I never made, to wit, that I said Middle Easten males are terrorists. I have never said that, yet that is wha tI am supposed to defend. What I did say, and used the Krauthammer quote to say more eloguently than I can, is that although your average Middle Eastern guy is not a terrorist, the groups of terrorists who are targeting America are more likely to be Middle Eastern males than, say, 70-year-old Irish nuns. Wring thinks that is an unfair generalization.
I will say this opne more time for your benefit I do not believe that the average Middle Eastern male is a terrorist. May I use an analogy as an illustration?
The average American is not a KKK memeber, but if you chjeck the nationality of the average Klansman, you’ll find that it is likely that he is an American than an Israeli or Swede. Wring will now say that I just stereotyped all Americans as Klansmen.
I’m sorry to hear things aren’t going well. I hope things improve soon.
well, nice that you’ve decided what I ‘would’ say.
What I did say was that your specific ‘rule’ for judging what was an ‘unfair stereotype’ vs. a fair ‘generalization’ allowed for all of the above. Still does.
and my last post to minty explained it yet again. What I’ve attempted to do here is to demonstrate to you that your habit of using sweeping generalizations does you a disservice. It backs you into that stupid little corner of having to provide cites for something you used as a rhetorical device, or as I’ve tried to show here also, into positions that aren’t realistic.
and, as my last post to minty again explained, my whole point was to attempt to get you to see the major disconnect between gobear the poster who will post sweeping generalities about entire populations, and gobear the poster who consistently jibs at others who do the same thing (when the sweeping generality involves one of the groups he selects), by calling them ‘unfair stereotypes’.
Sorry to hear things aren’t going well in your personal life. Same holds true for me. not that it makes a difference.
I’m sorry, I was explaining, but not excusing, my anger in this thread. I repeat, I’m sorry.
Let’s make a compromise. I will do my best to eschew rhetorical devices, including but not limited to satire, sarcasm, metaphor, simile, litotes, synecdoche, and paraphrasis, and I will work very hard to avoid sweeping gneralizations.
In return, I ask that you respond to what I post, not what you construe my posts to mean.
didn’t think of it as an excuse, sorry that it came across that way.
WRT: your offer. fair enough.
I hope things shape up for you.
Gobear, base on your recent posts, I consider this resolved. I hope it is resolved without any long-term ill feelings.