I know that _you know_ you're losing. You wouldn't resort to foul language and ad-homs if you had a credible argument to make, there'd be no point.
Well, Phlog, if you go back and look through your posts, there hasn't been much of a point to argue about.
Which means that you were beaten at the outset:
• "
Us 'self righteous twats' from the UK prefer to discuss the FACTS of the case, especially when it come to terrorism and the Irish problem." (Lie, poisoning the well.)
• "
Of course, assholes in the United States kept giving NORAID money to continue the bloodshed, without having a clue what it's all about, displaying a complete ignorance and contempt of the complexities of the situation, and thinking that killing more people (through funding) would lead to a solution." (Presumptory, poisoning the well.)
And we can't forget the larger picture:
• "
See, there are two major factions in the problem. The protestants, who are Irishmen living in Northern Ireland loyal to the crown, and the IRA, supposedly Catholic, who want to kick the English (and the pro English Irish inhabitants) out of Northern Ireland, and stitch it together with the rest of Ireland.
Now, here's another fact. Northern Ireland has democracy, as does Southern Ireland. Sinn Fein are the political wing of the IRA, and despite all the long years of the troubles, bombings and general terror, have never been supported enough to gain power, and make separation from the UK a valid political act. So they keep killing people instead. The Loyalists (protestants)then go kill people in reprisal attacks.
Of course, assholes in the United States kept giving NORAID money to continue the bloodshed, without having a clue what it's all about, displaying a complete ignorance and contempt of the complexities of the situation, and thinking that killing more people (through funding) would lead to a solution." (Straw man.)
So three fallacies, some rough language, and a reading comprehension problem are what you started with, Phlog. You didn't stand a chance from the outset.
Cheers, it's been fun beating you in debate.
So tell me, Phlog, what
were we debating?
There wasn't much of a debate, Phlog. In fact, if you actually want a debate, you ought to try presenting
facts that are
related to the discussion you enter. All you've won is the Illiterate of the Month award. All you've proven is that you have no point.
I asked you to explain the use of the word "proposal." You quite literally failed to attempt to make that explanation several times.
I mean, look at your string of fallacies:
• "
I've been evacuated from railways stations, and had a bomb go off outside a friends flat while I was there." (Appeal to emotion.)
• "
Anyway, I suggest you do a little more research, before embarrassing yourself on this issue any more." (Referring back to your straw man.)
• "
EVERYTHING YOU DOLT!" Obviously, you had no point to argue by this point.
• "
Do you now understand how your own sentence reads to someone who the IRA once tried to kill indiscriminitely?" (Appeal to emotion.)
• "
Point you are missing tiassa, is that the IRA nearly killed me once." (Appeal to emotion, fallacious claim of authority.)
Stop and consider that you haven't had an actual argument to put forth in days. Quite frankly, if you don't think I should be irritated at your dishonesty, at your harassment, at your insistence that you have a clue what you're talking about when you clearly don't, well, that speaks volumes about you.
If you want me to make a credible argument, try having a credible debate. In the meantime, there's nothing I can do when you run screaming from reality:
• "
Anyway, I suggest you do a little more research, before embarrassing yourself on this issue any more. Maybe visit Ireland, talk to the locals, see what they have to say?" (Building a straw man.)
• "
Tiassa, called Red Devil an 'illiterate twat' when your supposed explanantion was a run on sentence of absolutley horrific grammar amazes me. I find it hard to see what you're saying there, and just what your point is, other than the American perspective of Irish terrorism changed post Omagh." (Early admission that you don't know what you're talking about.)
• "
I've been evacuated from railways stations, and had a bomb go off outside a friends flat while I was there." (Appeal to emotion in order to establish authority of your straw man. Furthermore, you refused to respond to my acknowledgment of your fallacious issues. So that's your own problem.)
• "
Not offering new explanantions, facts or figures, just ad homs, and the usual declaration of superiority that all scoundrels fall back on." (Fallacious - there's no facts or figures to be had in the argument at hand, only according to your straw man.)
• "
EVERYTHING YOU DOLT! Northern Ireland is full of British people." (Your abusive tantrum here just reminds that you didn't know what you were talking about. I mean, why ignore the phrase "As an American," when you're willing to point it out later? Perhaps if if you did a little more research about Americans, you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself demonstrating that you don't understand American history, or the context of our own expulsion of the British. Resorting to shouting and insults, as I've been told, means you don't have an argument. What's
your excuse, boy?)
• "
Tiassa, let's get this back to the core issue, and ignore your attempts to distract anyone from the real issue using ad-homs etc, are you going to answer my question?" (Appeal to your straw man.)
• "
So, again you display that you haven't actually got a clue what's going on, but are prepared to run off at the mouth despite this." (Maintaining your straw man to cover your mistakes.)
• "
Where have I said I agree with expelling the British? I haven't." (Straw man, or just your illiteracy? I mean, seriously: Do you not know what you write in your
own posts?)
• "
Of course there would be an America. It would be a British colony still, unless Britain gave it self determination." (Historically inaccurate, and very indicative of your piss-poor respect for "self-determination" and "democracy." Just thought I'd mention it since it seems like your statement at the outset about preferring facts was just fallacious ejaculation.)
• "
But let's get back to the core. this expulsion you propose, how are you going to achieve that?" (Straw man.)
• "
Do you not understand how this sentence reads?" (Run, run, as fast as you can. Can't catch you, you're ... God? Why is it easier to demand, "Do you not understand how this sentence reads?" when it is clear that we have a disagreement. If only you had bothered to try to make the case before resorting to such childish appeals, perhaps I wouldn't find your fallacious basis for your vicious attack against me so damned insulting. If you actually indicated by your behavior and argument that you had a clue what you were talking about, I wouldn't find your bullshit so insulting.)
• "
The majority of the content of your posts are just ad-homs, you haven't demonstrated your grasp of the real political issues in NI at all. You seem incapable of explaining yourself, and pathetically attempt to pull some superiority angle, calling us illiterate, blah blah, but never actually getting to the core issues, you just dodge and weave." (Demonstrative of your problems with reading comprehension. It's an interesting point that ignores the presence of all your prior posts in our discussion.)
• "
Also of note, is that _nobody_ is supporting you in this thread." (Neither was this entirely accurate or even reasonably relevant. That so few people have involved themselves in our argument may be indicative of their intelligence--they may well recognize the futility of entering a loud argument in which one's reading comprehension is at stake. These sorts of discussions don't help anyone. That's unfortunate, because if there's one thing I'm willing to help you with, I'd like to see you learn to read so you can spare yourself the sort of frustration you've been carrying around for days without any hope or means of expression. It's unhealthy to live like that, man.)
• "
Do you now understand how your own sentence reads to someone who the IRA once tried to kill indiscriminitely?" (After entirely
failing to address the notion of a "proposal," you once again resort to the poor argument that everyone in the world ought to read and think just like you.)
• "
No thanks tiassa, I'd rather stick to the issue. Seems you can't stay on topic, and again, this another irrelevant diversion." (Given a simple method of proving your point, you refuse the challenge.)
• "
Answer the points in my post above, or don't bother." (A fallacious and dishonest argument. If you refuse my response, don't demand a response.)
• "
More tangents, sorry tiassa, I won't be drawn. Stick to the topic or admit defeat." (Again, you're running frightened because your mistake is apparent when you step outside your emotional blinders.)
• "
I dissected your sentence tiassa, and explained how it read to me. It's on page four. Read it, respond to it, and stop ducking." (Dishonesty does not wear well on you. It's rather too thin for the weather. Your claim is fallacious, as I would point out in my response to you, because you never did make the case for your original accusation of a "proposal," and, furthermore, never tried.)
• "
So stop stalling and respond." (I found it funny that, in light of your inability to approach the discussion honestly, you still considered this a useful argument.)
• "
So you come up with some analogy that bears no little resemblance to the structure of the sentence I have a problem with, and set some fallacious goal that if I prove one, I prove the other too? That's voodoo, not logic, and far below the standard that somebody like you claims to be." (Too bad you didn't actually
demonstrate your claim. If it was so easy to disarm, why run away from it?)
• "
So supporting terrorism isn't a real issue?" (Dishonest inasmuch as it is a straw man intended to distract from the issues at hand.)
• "
Ah, and again, you can't resist the ad-hom, or the declaration of superiority. It's just padding your posts, and more distraction. I've explained how the sentence reads, rebut my dissection, and debate properly." (If you had actually addressed reasonably any of my rebuttals of your accusation, perhaps your flight from the conflict you started wouldn't resemble such cowardice. That cowardice is
your right, by all means, but if you choose to scream and cry and annoy other people by it, you might wish to consider how annoying other people might find it when you make them the object of your excessive petulance.)
• "
Nope, there was no point, just a flawed analogy that only seemd relevant to you. I'd rather just stick to your original sentence, with which I have issue." (Your continued flight from the obvious point of your poor reading comprehension and all the misery you attempt to bring people by it was actually a bit of a surprise to me. I figured that if I shortened the point down enough, you might be capable of working with it. I was wrong.)
• "
It becomes a proposal, because the expulsion is not currently taking pace, so therefore will take place at some future date, if your will is satisfied." (This is your excuse for logic? Swing and a miss, boy.)
• "
Point you are missing tiassa, is that the IRA nearly killed me once." (This appeal to emotion is your response to my technical rebuttal of your position?)
• "
You seem to think I am defending Red Devil, as you keep referring to his 'temper tantrum', whereas that is far from the case. I have my own issue with your post, it's nothing to do with him. He's an adult, and can argue for himself. I guess he's given up on your ignorant viewpoint." (Then maybe you should have kept your nose out of what could have been a quick argument, some discussion of misunderstandings, and a return to the topic itself.)
• "
Finally you've realised that to defend your indefendable sentence you actually have to dissect your words and offer a reason why it doesn't make you sound like a terrorist sympathiser, and have to resort to secondary meanings for words to squirm out of your predicament (so who is using specific definitions?)." (This is an hilarious argument on your part.
If you didn't want the technical dissection, why did you spend so many posts demanding it?)
• "
Again you drag up your flawed and tangential analogy, which I won't get drawn into, that's a different debate." (One final attempt to distance yourself from the argument that broke your point originally?)
• "
As to 'barely relevant', I don't care if your post was barely relevant to the thread." (The thin relevance actually indicates from the outset that you've devoted far too much emotional energy to this useless and vicious tantrum of yours.)
• "
You have to admit how your sentence _could_ read to someone who has been touched by the troubles." (Is your best argument to tell me what I "have to" think?)
• "
So in future, think before you post on such a complicated issue you obviously fail to grasp." (I know it must feel nice to say this, but in the future would you please do me the favor of at least having a clue what discussion you are inserting yourself into? It would have saved us both a lot of typing had you done so this time.)
• "
Wow, and I thought with all the expletives, ad-homs and slurs you've used you were looking like the angry hateful one in this thread." (Me? I'm just annoyed at a self-righteous twat making an international incident out of his own illiteracy.)
• "
I know that _you know_ you're losing. You wouldn't resort to foul language and ad-homs if you had a credible argument to make, there'd be no point." (As I've shown, there hasn't been a credible argument taking place. After all the begging you've done that I should accommodate you, why resort to
this argument once I have gone out of my way to accommodate you.)
• "
Cheers, it's been fun beating you in debate." (Who are you trying to convince?)
Really, Phlog, perhaps you really do think that liars and assholes deserve the utmost respect in society. (After all, you've gotta watch out for your own, y'know.) But when you fail to show any comprehension of what you're yelling about, there's not much of a debate to be had. It's a little like holding a raving street drunk at arm's length--there's no point in debating the pink-and-green Vikings having a chili cook-off in his brain.
Although I'm certainly happy to accommodate your tantrum, in the end. Whatever it takes to slow your decline. But nobody can heal you until you decide you
want to heal.
