You can’t name a single insult that I’ve “thrown at you”.
Normally there would no point in continuing this discussion but I feel like I need to point out the absurdity for posterity’s sake.
Another user said:
Is the math wrong though?
In relation to Joe Rogan’s video.
I responded that user:
The math isn’t the problem. The problem is the idiotic belief that because Jews share genetic heritage that they’re all the same, believe the same things, have the same values, are friendly with one another, and/or are all collaborating and plotting with one another to take over the world or something.
And then a minute later updated it to the less wieldy version:
The math is neither wrong, nor a problem. What wrong is the belief underlying the implication being made.
/u/Adamrises responded to the first version of my comment:
So now race is back to a social construct with absolutely zero effects on a single other part of your mental state or life.
Which is clearly a straw-man argument, but when confronted about it, proceeded to complain over the next few comments that I was a coward for editing it and the only reason his response looked bad was because I edited it. So I posted both versions and asked u/Adamrises to explain himself, at which point he just doubled down on the same straw-man argument as before.
Why is u/Adamrises comment a straw-man, you ask? Well, let’s break it down:
The problem is the idiotic belief that because Jews share genetic heritage
that they’re all the same
Does this follow from race? No.
believe the same things
Does this? No.
have the same values
Does this? No.
are friendly with one another
This? No.
and/or are all collaborating and plotting with one another
Lastly, does this? No.
These things clearly have no connection to race or genetics, which is why it’s an idiotic belief that they do.
These are the “beliefs underlying the implication” that Joe Rogan having so many Jews on his show is a bad thing, or that there’s a larger “problem” of Jews having outsized influence in the USA.
This being the case, why would u/Adamrises make the following comments accusing me of claiming race was a social construct?
So now race is back to a social construct with absolutely zero effects on a single other part of your mental state or life.
And:
So race has zero effect on a person whatsoever.
These statements are a complete non-sequitur to my point where I clearly list a bunch of things that have nothing to do with race, yet u//Adamrises doubles down on this straw-man that presupposes a false dichotomy between everything being related to race or nothing being related to race, completely ignoring what I actually said… TWICE.
I can understand making this mistake once, but ignoring what I said and making up some ridiculous straw-man TWICE after whining, deflecting and otherwise maintaining a snarky attitude made it clear to me that u/Adamrises is not operating in good faith.
Damn homie, you really are mad that I called your original comment retarded. I do like this part though:
updated it to the less wieldy version
That's a very PR way of saying "removed any actual substance and replaced it with an incredibly vague 'the implication' so that way I have no actual argument to attack."
You can’t name a single insult that I’ve “thrown at you”.
You’re just butthurt in general it seems
A weak one, but hey you are the one who continues to be so bad at arguments you tried "not one single time" and forgot to check if you actually had.
the only reason his response looked bad was because I edited it
It didn't look bad, it simply ceased to make sense. Its pretty faggy to say "the upvotes speak for themselves" about how bad it looks but since you are trying to pull a "for posterity's sake" and speak as if assembling a cancel doc we are on a pretty faggy level now.
Don't worry, no one is reading this gay shit anymore. Its just us homie.
completely ignoring what I actually said
You said nothing to respond to, other than flinging freshman level debate club terms. That's why I found the edit so cowardly. Because it was the only time you said anything of substance. Of course you needed to edit that down to a very vague "the implication" to rectify that mistake.
Of course when I do bring forth my argument, you immediately pull out your debate club handbook, call it bad faith and then get pissy when I insult you back.
A weak one, but hey you are the one who continues to be so bad at arguments you tried "not one single time" and forgot to check if you actually had.
If you think being accused of being "butthurt" is an insult, then you have pretty thin skin.
Don't worry, no one is reading this gay shit anymore. Its just us homie.
Of course nobody else is reading it now. "Posterity" means people in the future.
You have a point though. This entire conversation with you has been pointless and a waste of time; I doubt it would keep anyone's interest long enough to read the full thing.
It didn't look bad, it simply ceased to make sense.
If something doesn't make sense, wouldn't you say that looks bad?
Its pretty faggy to say "the upvotes speak for themselves" about how bad it looks
I never said that. Again, reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
You said nothing to respond to, other than flinging freshman level debate club terms.
Big words are difficult for you? I literally spelled it out in my last comment and you still don't get it?
Actually, I think you do get it. You literally repeated the same points after both versions of my comment, so it's clear you understood what I was saying, you're just not a good faith actor. You have no intention of engaging in honest argumentation.
Of course when I do bring forth my argument, you immediately pull out your debate club handbook, call it bad faith and then get pissy when I insult you back.
I don't even recall you insulting me.
Your argument (if you can call it that) makes no sense. At no point did I say anything that would suggest I think race is a social construct, and you repeated that accusation TWICE... literally the same argument after the original version of my comment AND the edited version. And in neither case did it make sense.
If you think being accused of being "butthurt" is an insult, then you have pretty thin skin.
Irrelevant. You claimed you I couldn't name a time you did, and so I named it. That's why words are important my negro, because even if its weak and more amusing than insult you still did and then tried to claim you didn't. You'd think in that freshman debate club you'd learn about how little missteps like that do a lot to unravel arguments.
If something doesn't make sense, wouldn't you say that looks bad?
Not necessarily. The edit removed the context in which it was responding to, thereby people could not discern what it meant. But knowing it was editted makes it clear that context is missing, and any reader can know to withhold judgement on quality.
I never said that. Again, reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit
You probably shouldn't attack someone's reading comprehension when you fail to read a sentence properly. Because its me saying that gay phrase to you, not quoting you.
Big words are difficult for you?
Nah, I know the words. I'm just calling you out for thinking just saying logical fallacies count as an argument, and are an I Win card like a guy straight out of Tumblr Training School.
You can’t name a single insult that I’ve “thrown at you”.
Normally there would no point in continuing this discussion but I feel like I need to point out the absurdity for posterity’s sake.
Another user said:
In relation to Joe Rogan’s video.
I responded that user:
And then a minute later updated it to the less wieldy version:
/u/Adamrises responded to the first version of my comment:
Which is clearly a straw-man argument, but when confronted about it, proceeded to complain over the next few comments that I was a coward for editing it and the only reason his response looked bad was because I edited it. So I posted both versions and asked u/Adamrises to explain himself, at which point he just doubled down on the same straw-man argument as before.
Why is u/Adamrises comment a straw-man, you ask? Well, let’s break it down:
Does this follow from race? No.
Does this? No.
Does this? No.
This? No.
Lastly, does this? No.
These things clearly have no connection to race or genetics, which is why it’s an idiotic belief that they do.
These are the “beliefs underlying the implication” that Joe Rogan having so many Jews on his show is a bad thing, or that there’s a larger “problem” of Jews having outsized influence in the USA.
This being the case, why would u/Adamrises make the following comments accusing me of claiming race was a social construct?
And:
These statements are a complete non-sequitur to my point where I clearly list a bunch of things that have nothing to do with race, yet u//Adamrises doubles down on this straw-man that presupposes a false dichotomy between everything being related to race or nothing being related to race, completely ignoring what I actually said… TWICE.
I can understand making this mistake once, but ignoring what I said and making up some ridiculous straw-man TWICE after whining, deflecting and otherwise maintaining a snarky attitude made it clear to me that u/Adamrises is not operating in good faith.
Damn homie, you really are mad that I called your original comment retarded. I do like this part though:
That's a very PR way of saying "removed any actual substance and replaced it with an incredibly vague 'the implication' so that way I have no actual argument to attack."
A weak one, but hey you are the one who continues to be so bad at arguments you tried "not one single time" and forgot to check if you actually had.
It didn't look bad, it simply ceased to make sense. Its pretty faggy to say "the upvotes speak for themselves" about how bad it looks but since you are trying to pull a "for posterity's sake" and speak as if assembling a cancel doc we are on a pretty faggy level now.
Don't worry, no one is reading this gay shit anymore. Its just us homie.
You said nothing to respond to, other than flinging freshman level debate club terms. That's why I found the edit so cowardly. Because it was the only time you said anything of substance. Of course you needed to edit that down to a very vague "the implication" to rectify that mistake.
Of course when I do bring forth my argument, you immediately pull out your debate club handbook, call it bad faith and then get pissy when I insult you back.
If you think being accused of being "butthurt" is an insult, then you have pretty thin skin.
Of course nobody else is reading it now. "Posterity" means people in the future.
You have a point though. This entire conversation with you has been pointless and a waste of time; I doubt it would keep anyone's interest long enough to read the full thing.
If something doesn't make sense, wouldn't you say that looks bad?
I never said that. Again, reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
Big words are difficult for you? I literally spelled it out in my last comment and you still don't get it?
Actually, I think you do get it. You literally repeated the same points after both versions of my comment, so it's clear you understood what I was saying, you're just not a good faith actor. You have no intention of engaging in honest argumentation.
I don't even recall you insulting me.
Your argument (if you can call it that) makes no sense. At no point did I say anything that would suggest I think race is a social construct, and you repeated that accusation TWICE... literally the same argument after the original version of my comment AND the edited version. And in neither case did it make sense.
Irrelevant. You claimed you I couldn't name a time you did, and so I named it. That's why words are important my negro, because even if its weak and more amusing than insult you still did and then tried to claim you didn't. You'd think in that freshman debate club you'd learn about how little missteps like that do a lot to unravel arguments.
Not necessarily. The edit removed the context in which it was responding to, thereby people could not discern what it meant. But knowing it was editted makes it clear that context is missing, and any reader can know to withhold judgement on quality.
You probably shouldn't attack someone's reading comprehension when you fail to read a sentence properly. Because its me saying that gay phrase to you, not quoting you.
Nah, I know the words. I'm just calling you out for thinking just saying logical fallacies count as an argument, and are an I Win card like a guy straight out of Tumblr Training School.