The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early CampFIRE
|Subject: Re: No AR-15 at Sandy Hook?||Date: 1/24/2013 2:48 PM|
|Author: TheDope1||Number: 668130 of 734709|
I actually lol'd at that. Do you or do you not realize that all the people on PA that you've been jumping up and down at saying "you libs refuse to acknowledge my brilliant counterarguments, therefore you suck" are thinking much the same as you?
I'm not surprised they would laugh at something I didn't say. Would be fitting.
Once upon a time, PA was a bastion of Conservatism. PA libs stepped in and adapted. Way to keep the circle of life flowing.
libs turned PA into a rec wh0re festival of BUSH SUCKS!. And ruined it in the process. They also spill over into other boards.
LOL! Like you did above? I'm really not sure why you are expecting anything other than exactly what you're dishing?
Most PA libs spend their time trying to discredit the opposition in lieu of arguing. That's why you see so many left wing posts about "credibility". The most laughable recent example was synchronicity claiming I wasn't credible because I provided an opinion that I thought Obama couldn't get more than 277 electoral votes. So therefore under his logic, I wasn't "credible".
That tactic - practiced by Umm, synchronicity and now you, is called "Poisoning the Well". It's a form of an ad hominem argument:
To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way. For instance:
"Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water." (Abusive)
"My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business." (Circumstantial)
Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a well-poisoning either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one's personal integrity. As with standard ad hominems, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer. However, what sets Poisoning the Well apart from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case.
In other words, you have to address the argument, not the arguer. PA's collective grade (LOL) is a big fat FAIL on that score.
And since Poisoning the Well is an invalid tactic, I can ignore it. And so I do.
BTW. I just gave you a gift. I use that site to gut your running buddies' posts all the time.
Though, if we're being honest here, I shouldn't expect you to see the irony here. That's obviously a bridge too far. Which is also exactly what's going through your head about "PA Libs", which makes it doubly ironic. Or not. Whatever. You're perfect and righteous, they suck, carry on.
Keep on makin' it about me, ace. :)
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|