S
Please tell me exactly what the manner in which he presents his discussion has anything to do with the facts of the topics he is actually discussing.
I find this typical of your posts. You choose to use ad hominem attacks rather than address the actual specific points raised by the discussion. As such, I struggle to find any relevance in anything your contribute to a thread.
Which facts? The ones about Sarah Palins pussy or the sisterfuckers in Arkansas? I find it hard to take you seriously when you advocate factual debate but you seem fine with the manner in which the clown in the video spews his opinions (not facts).
Does he have any rants on being against socialism, gay marriage, or health care reform? I would like to see you sit still and tell me hes dead on with those if they exist.
S
Shai Gar
S
Shai Gar
The topic was how appropriate it was for Sarah Palin to say she was happy to be in "Pro America parts of America". Regardless of how you feel about his jokes and commentary, it is a valid question of the character and intelligence of the woman.
Red herring. If you wish to accuse me of being biased, then that is fine, but it has no bearing on my question of whether you avoid addressing the specific facts of discussion. In fact, it seems to provide evidence to support my assertion. However, I would like to think if he provided a rational commentary against those topics, I could overcome my cognitive biases to see how accurate his critique was. Would you care to point out some of the factual inaccuracies in his videos?
Last edited:
Its a fuckin non issue. Who gives a shit where she prefers to be. I prefer to be around hot chicks, doesnt mean I hate men or something I just get more out of a relationship with hot chicks than I do at a giant sausage fest. I am getting so sick of the double standard bullshit, we are supposed to be open and tolerant, and all this crapola but its perfectly acceptable to bust on all those red state REDNECKS and SISTER FUCKERS. And I am from New England we are the hugest snobs in the nation, and its pervasive, its everywhere, its absurd. That she prefers to surround herself with "pro americans" aka Americans who dont constantly talk shit about the USA to look more egalitarian to the rest of the world then so frickin be it. Obama surrounds himself with criminals like Bill Ayers, but we cant talk about that, its character assassination.
The question of your bias is moot, you ARE biased. I think even you would admit that much. But you are correct, it doesnt have any bearing on the actual subject, I just found it humorous that you were so vocal about proper discourse in debate but you seem to go easy on this guy when he is the exact opposite. I guess I dont really care about discussing his message or whatever, that doesnt interest me. I dont talk to him, I talk to you though and I am more interested in that, and how you can be somewhat hypocritical like that... but I am well aware that this can be seen as a troll or flame or whatever so I wont continue on with it. But in terms of his actual message, I guess you win, I can't prove that his opinion is wrong.
I'm not sure how I'm going easy on him. Unlike sources like Rush Limbaugh and FOX News, this guy doesn't have to resort to factual innacuracies and lies to push his opinion. He is certainly vulgar about how he goes about it, but the audience he is aiming to reach are the ones who already hold his views. Just look at the comment you made...
"Obama surrounds himself with criminals like Bill Ayers, but we cant talk about that, its character assassination."
Please provide evidence of all these "criminals". I think that would make an excellent thread. Let's see how factually accurate your statement is in comparison to the guy you argue is using "mostly baseless emotional verbal masturbation," particularly when you make comments like the above and lets consider what might be hypocritical of your statements.
And frankly, I'm under no disillusionment that The Amazing Atheist is just another propagandist. You have quite adequately proven yourself to be one in your last post. However, he usually doesn't distort the facts when he presents his views. Of course, you are free to demonstrate that he does.
TheAmazingAtheist is not popular for his hard facts or impeccable logic. If you want to listen to an often dry, but soundly constructed argument, watch one of Thunderf00t's videos. I watch TJ because he's entertaining. I don't always agree with him, and on occasion, I notice that something he is says is plainly false. But then I don't expect a guy in his twenties to be able to speak with great competence on such a broad range of topics, so I take what he says with a grain of salt and just enjoy the way in which he says it, complete with many intentionally exaggerated remarks that unfamiliar people might take to be his real opinions.
How so, exactly?
How so, exactly?
I don't want to wade through the plethora of his vids but he identifies as an INTP. Though I can see the ENTP side as well. I'll try halfheartedly to find the vid where he mentions he's an INTP. Don't expect miracles or even marginal effort on my part, I'm way too fucking lazy.
Edit: I think the best of the YouTube Atheist bunch is PaulsEgo.
http://www.youtube.com/user/paulsego?blend=1&ob=4
[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z4jKlX3ZD_k&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z4jKlX3ZD_k&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
Edit: I think the best of the YouTube Atheist bunch is PaulsEgo.
http://www.youtube.com/user/paulsego?blend=1&ob=4
[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z4jKlX3ZD_k&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z4jKlX3ZD_k&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
Last edited:
I would not ever be close friends with that man. Just saying. I think I would always feel like he was going to hit me or something. So angry!! It's perfectly alright to have opinions, but it sort of doesn't help you to get them across if you're degrading and overwhelming your audience in the process. So I hope he's not actually expecting any real political change. Something about flies and honey.
S
Shai Gar
Okay, I was slightly irritated that I had to to get my glasses.
But I'm still laughing. So we're cool.
But I'm still laughing. So we're cool.
S
Shai Gar
It's true though, use honey to get people and they wonder why you need to use that tactic... are you trying to sell something? is your argument that weak?
I somewhat respectfully disagree, but not completely. I don't know that it's necessarily that one must intentionally and artificially be kind to others as a means to an end. Some of us genuinely care if we hurt other people in our delivery. I'm not talking about emotional manipulation, I'm talking about bringing intentions into question. Honesty and straightforward critique have their place, but tact is necessary to have any real, lasting effect. If a person feels like the way to get someone to understand their p.o.v. is to verbally (or otherwise) abuse them, they really need to figure out what they're trying to accomplish, and for what benefit.
S
Shai Gar
Okay, so you don't want to hurt someone, fine.
However, if someone tries to change my mind by being nice while presenting their argument, I'm wondering whether or not they're trying to emotionally manipulate me.
I don't trust arguments put forth in that manner.
However, if someone tries to change my mind by being nice while presenting their argument, I'm wondering whether or not they're trying to emotionally manipulate me.
I don't trust arguments put forth in that manner.
That says quite a bit about you, actually, and not necessarily the person presenting the argument. There are actually nice people, you know. But I'm going to assume that my point isn't getting through to you, based on the level of niceness. Next time, I'll try gnashing of teeth.