No, your communication skills are lacking. Your first sentence is a run on sentence and says, "Show me someone who thinks for his or herself, and I will show you an uneducated moron who thinks that Pres. Obama is an android assembled by Russian/Muslim/Marxist homosexuals in a hidden factory on the moon, or that the government is about to unleash a zombie army on us all."
Thinking=moron, that is what you said. Not me.
And clearly my mental capacities are not slow. It is you who has zero argument other than insulting someone who tries to challenge you.
If you want to discuss people who claim to "think for themselves" but then repeat catch phrases, then discuss that. But you are wrong. You start with something general then provide evidence in support that include specific examples. Who taught you to debate? Those who speak in blanket statements have no argument.
And no nerve is struck, I'm not the one is having issues communicating. Which is surprising considering how scattered I am.
No, you're getting too hung up on words and want to play semantics. I insult you because I am insulted that I must break things down into simple pieces for a simpleton who fancies himself smart enough to explain to ME, what my own position is. My first statement is not a run-on and I find it rather amusing that you seem to think that the way a message is presented is somehow more valuable than the message itself.
"And clearly my mental capacities are not slow. It is you who has zero argument other than insulting someone who tries to challenge you."
The only 'challenge' coming from you is the one you were obviously born with; you have posed no challenge to my original statements whatsoever and have proceeded to whine about my style and pretend that what I say is somehow incomprehensible.
"But you are wrong. You start with something general then provide evidence in support that include specific examples. Who taught you to debate? Those who speak in blanket statements have no argument."
Nope, not at all. The method of induction derives generalities from particulars, not the other way around. The only way you can know anything about chairs or trees in general is to examine particulars. The examples I have given above are entirely particular and in no way can you say that they are generalities. I'm feeling awfully cold - can I borrow one of your quilts?
IIN to hate people who "think for themselves?"
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
No, your communication skills are lacking. Your first sentence is a run on sentence and says, "Show me someone who thinks for his or herself, and I will show you an uneducated moron who thinks that Pres. Obama is an android assembled by Russian/Muslim/Marxist homosexuals in a hidden factory on the moon, or that the government is about to unleash a zombie army on us all."
Thinking=moron, that is what you said. Not me.
And clearly my mental capacities are not slow. It is you who has zero argument other than insulting someone who tries to challenge you.
If you want to discuss people who claim to "think for themselves" but then repeat catch phrases, then discuss that. But you are wrong. You start with something general then provide evidence in support that include specific examples. Who taught you to debate? Those who speak in blanket statements have no argument.
And no nerve is struck, I'm not the one is having issues communicating. Which is surprising considering how scattered I am.
--
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
No, you're getting too hung up on words and want to play semantics. I insult you because I am insulted that I must break things down into simple pieces for a simpleton who fancies himself smart enough to explain to ME, what my own position is. My first statement is not a run-on and I find it rather amusing that you seem to think that the way a message is presented is somehow more valuable than the message itself.
"And clearly my mental capacities are not slow. It is you who has zero argument other than insulting someone who tries to challenge you."
The only 'challenge' coming from you is the one you were obviously born with; you have posed no challenge to my original statements whatsoever and have proceeded to whine about my style and pretend that what I say is somehow incomprehensible.
"But you are wrong. You start with something general then provide evidence in support that include specific examples. Who taught you to debate? Those who speak in blanket statements have no argument."
Nope, not at all. The method of induction derives generalities from particulars, not the other way around. The only way you can know anything about chairs or trees in general is to examine particulars. The examples I have given above are entirely particular and in no way can you say that they are generalities. I'm feeling awfully cold - can I borrow one of your quilts?
--
howaminotmyself
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Is this Chris?
In this setting, all you have are words. It would be wise to use them more effectively.
And you still haven't insulted me and I'm not sure why you are trying.
--
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Who the hell is that?