Nope still not. Oh, we do get “If you say, ‘Many people here…’, which is what I said, would need to give examples amounting to a large percentage here, but not necessarily most.” so clearly you have an idea of what is needed. But you have still not provided it. You’ve yet to provide even one example.

CSS: And again you seem to focus on the insult to the exclusion of the point. It’s Style over Substance fallacy.

Still waiting for you to focus on the point.

CSS: So you actually want proof and weren’t just being an asshole then. Jay Tea, Haplo9, Jay, and you

Ah, finally. Took a while.

And, no. Jay Tea made the original post and I already spotted you Haplo so I grant you those easy ones. But Jay’s is indefinite as to which of the discussions going on by that point “one” refers to and I never said JT proved his case. Go, check.

Enough of you for now. Leaving. You may have the last word. I won’t notice.

Going to have to agree to disagree there, because we’re coming at this from opposite directions. You’re saying having a particular trait is what makes you human, I’m seeing it as people are human and they have a particular trait.

They intentionally gave up what makes them human, they rational minds. That is why they are sub-human. Nothing separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom except our rational minds. Give that up, and you are no better than animals.

Actually, I am.

My point it twofold.

1.) The level of evidence required depends on the claim being made.

If you say, ‘Every time…’ then you have to show it happens every time. If you say, ‘Seems like every time…’ Then you have to show there’s an overwhelming pattern. Three doesn’t cut it. If you say, ‘Many people here…’, which is what I said, would need to give examples amounting to a large percentage here, but not necessarily most.

2.) If someone demands unreasonably proof, there’s no reason to give any proof.

“Which, in typical fashion, you choose not to do and instead go for the insults.”

And again you seem to focus on the insult to the exclusion of the point. It’s Style over Substance fallacy.

“That was the “name four” part. The rest was sarcasm which apparently you’re too stupid to recognize or get. And, by the CSS scale, I suppose that makes you too stupid to be considered human.”

Oh! So you actually want proof and weren’t just being an asshole then. Jay Tea, Haplo9, Jay, and you. There’s four.

Considering the vast,vast number of people who put politics over reality, consult astrologers or hold other similarly no-provable-basis-in-reality type beliefs (e.g., worship some invisible deity in the sky) it would seem to me this is a common trait among humans. Careful, reasoned analysis would actually show that the majority of mankind hold and expose some such belief/opinion/what have you.

So, how rational is it to characterize people who demonstrate a very human trait, one possessed by the vast majority of humans, as something less than human? Isn’t it more intellectually honest to use a more accurate term like illogical, irrational or even deluded?

CSS: This is you being a fucking retard. The level of evidence required depends on the claim being made. If you can’t understand that, then there is no point talking to you. You are simply too dumb to be considered human.

So, once again, you are not responding to the actual point being made. To wit: You said “many” people here beleieve JT had given enough evidence to support his claim and, echoing your own original challenge to him, I asked you to back that up. Which, in typical fashion, you choose not to do and instead go for the insults.

That was the “name four” part. The rest was sarcasm which apparently you’re too stupid to recognize or get. And, by the CSS scale, I suppose that makes you too stupid to be considered human.

Yeah. Profanity isn’t insulting. In fact, there’s nothing wrong with profanity, other than some people are scared of words. In fact, profanity is based one the superstition that saying certain syllables in the right order can be used to cast magical spell. Seriously. The word, ‘fuck’ is considered impolite in part because people used to believe in real magic. I don’t hold those beliefs.

On the other hand, lying about someone’s character is always insulting.

By the way, I don’t find the insults a problem. I have a problem with you ignoring my point and ONLY insulting me.

“Fact is I’ve been far more respectful and considerate towards you on this and other threads than you have shown in return.”

So lying is being respectful?

Me: “Jay Tea compared HuffPost and Freepers implying HuffPost was worse”

Sean: “Uh, no. Point to thing I said in my posts that a reasonable person could interpret as “freaking out”. No insults, no swearing, no gratuitous use of exclamation points. Just observations and requests for clarification.”

This must be a matter of definition. I can do all of those things and never once freak out.

It’s part of a pattern of your. You’ve argued with me on a subject long past the original person admitted they were wrong. That’s not rational. That to me is freaking out.

Sean: “Uh, no. “Wow, since when did Freep turn into Huffington Post?” stating they are the same, not implying one was worse.”

No. “Turn into” implies HuffPost is worst than Freepers, else they couldn’t become as bad, they would already be as bad. It’s subtle, but that’s how the language works.

“Name four. (I’d make it three, but we know three examples isn’t enough.)”

This is you being a fucking retard. The level of evidence required depends on the claim being made. If you can’t understand that, then there is no point talking to you. You are simply too dumb to be considered human. So, do you want to retract what you said?

“First, I have to admit I’m continually impressed by your ability to be so hypocritical within a single paragraph. Calling someone a sub-human because they “lacks the empathy needed to be human” and then following right up with a demonstration of your own lack of empathy for Schiavo.”

What lack of empathy? She was dead, she died a long time before anyone in the general public new her name. You, they stuff that makes you you is in your frontal cortex. You have no soul, no ethereal mind, you are merely the combined pattern of braincells firing in your frontal cortex. If that changes, you change. If that ceases, you cease. This happened to Terry Shiavo when she had a heart attack and lapsed into a coma. It’s sad, but it doesn’t change the fact that she died a long time before her body did.

“You’re having a gag with us, aren’t you? Admit it. It’s like Jack Benny playing a miser. You really just write this stuff to see how long we’ll fall for you’re playing the part of an overbearing, hypocritical troll.”

I would like to see examples of actual hypocrisy. That would be interesting.

“What exactly did JT say that was so bad you keep referring to it without actually saying what it was?”

Have you read some of his posts? Just today he argued that Obama’s errors over his statements regarding the Holocaust prove he isn’t presidential material. Yet he supports McCain how has made similar gaffes. Now, this is either incredibly stupid, so stupid that he doesn’t deserve to be considered a member of the human race, or he is putting politics over reality. Sub-human is just a short-hand to that. (I also apply this logic to people who consult astrologers before making major decisions, for example.)

First, I have to admit I’m continually impressed by your ability to be so hypocritical within a single paragraph. Calling someone a sub-human because they “lacks the empathy needed to be human” and then following right up with a demonstration of your own lack of empathy for Schiavo.

You’re having a gag with us, aren’t you? Admit it. It’s like Jack Benny playing a miser. You really just write this stuff to see how long we’ll fall for you’re playing the part of an overbearing, hypocritical troll.

Anyway, I’ve heard you say several places that JT is subhuman because of some view he expressed elsewhere, but you have never in all those mentioned said exactly what that view is. Just wondering if you could clarify. I’ve never been comfortable believing someone is an asshole just because someone else says they are. What exactly did JT say that was so bad you keep referring to it without actually saying what it was?

CSS: When you claimed I wasn’t debating. It is a clear implication based on the context that you are saying I am only insulting people here.

Really? That’s it? THAT is the insult? Following your profanity laden tirades by asking “Since when have you engaged in debate?”.

Wow. For someone who hardly makes a post which doesn’t insult someone’s intelligence and regularly refers to others as subhumans, fucking liars, retards, etc you really have a sensitive spot to being insulted. Fact is I’ve been far more respectful and considerate towards you on this and other threads than you have shown in return. And then you take even more offense at it being pointed out that you’re not in a particularly good position to complain about being insulted.

Nice, also how you do continue to change the criteria for things. You parse JT’s original post word-by-word insisting he back up exactly what he said (even though you acknowledge he was using hyperbole) but then you jump on me for the “clear implication” you see in what I wrote.

Oh, and speaking of lying:

You freak out
Uh, no. Point to thing I said in my posts that a reasonable person could interpret as “freaking out”. No insults, no swearing, no gratuitous use of exclamation points. Just observations and requests for clarification.

Jay Tea compared HuffPost and Freepers implying HuffPost was worse
Uh, no. “Wow, since when did Freep turn into Huffington Post?” stating they are the same, not implying one was worse.

Yet many people here actually think he’s given enough evidence to support his original claim.
Name four. (I’d make it three, but we know three examples isn’t enough.) Who here has said his evidence proves him right? I’ll even spot you Haplo9′s “Jay’s claim is on pretty solid ground”, so you only need to find 3 more.

When you claimed I wasn’t debating. It is a clear implication based on the context that you are saying I am only insulting people here.

“Which, if true (debatable (look it up)) often gets (as many have pointed out) completely obfuscated by your “debating style”.”

Here’s the problem with that logic…

The other people are falling for the Style Over Substance fallacy. You do this all of the time. I make a solid point and I swear at the same time. You freak out and defend the person who is clearly wrong.

For instance, Jay Tea compared HuffPost and Freepers implying HuffPost was worse. When I asked for proof, he never once mentioned the Freepers. When you compare two groups, you have to mention both when you provide evidence. This is basic English. There is no way anyone ANYONE who is not functionally illiterate would accept his evidence for his original claim.

Yet many people here actually think he’s given enough evidence to support his original claim. Many people here don’t even know what his original claim is.

By the way, Jay is subhuman because he lacks the empathy needed to be human. He is the one that thinks people should die because the solution goes against his political philosophy. (And this is not my ‘claim.’ He said so in nearly as many words.) I defended Jay Tea on a while when he first arrived here, however, he has clearly shown he’s in the Terri Schiavo category of sub-human. (It takes more to be human than DNA and a heartbeat.) And this is not based solely on this thread, but on numerous threads. To say otherwise, and you did, is a lie.

You are a liar.

1st post: I challenged the veracity of your post.

2nd post: I challenged the level of evidence you gave. Pointed out that I could find three examples of Republican elected officials who have joked about killed people.

3rd post: I pointed out that your original claim wasn’t you could find an example of the same on HuffPost, but it happened frequently enough to seem like it happened all of the time.

4th post: Point out Sean jumping in to the fight because of profanity while not even understanding the debate.

5th post: Showing that another person who thinks ‘Seems like all the time’ means 3 examples.

6th post: 3-parter including the fact that your claim was not just that you could find an example or two of this on HuffPost, but your claim that Freepers and them are the same.

7th post: Explaining the time line for someone who didn’t understand what had happened so far.

8th post: Explaining how the other side was shifting the burden of proof. They made a claim and now what me to prove it wrong without offering enough proof to begin with.

9th post: Explaining the “But, But, But Clinton” lie and how it has become accepted truth.

10th post: Explaining to you that your original claim was based on percentages, and not just finding one or two examples.

11th post: Sean actually tried to claim that what you said was only an impression, and not an actually claim. I disagreed.

12th post: Sean doesn’t know the meaning of the word, ‘debate.’

13th post: Pointing out that I had a point to every post.

14th post: Showing the evidence (this post).

15th post: Pointing out the insult. (My next post.)

Yup, you’re ALL about the debating, aren’t you?

Every post I made here I had a point. Every single time I addressed what was said to me. It is possible to insult someone and address their argument at the same time.

Yes, and the point you had to make is “I have a bigger dick (metaphorically speaking) than you do.” You addressed what was said to you by assailing the other people. (Or, in my case, non-person.) And while it is possible to insult someone AND address their argument at the same time, you certainly haven’t proved it.

Sean, on the other hand, ignored what I said and ONLY insulted me.

In other words, Sean treated you like you treat others? The sheer, unmitigated GALL of him!

If you can’t tell the difference, then you truly are subhuman.

If? IF? I thought you settled that one (as far as you’re concerned) a long, long time ago.

I never argued that particular “point” a long time ago, realizing it was merely the frothing of your deranged mind, but apparently it was still up for debate until this piece. I had no idea you considered it disputable.

Congrats, Stroke. You’ve managed to alienate a good chunk of your base here. Remarkable, how you’ve let yourself be so readily manipulated and controlled by a subhuman like me.

Imagine how much worse I could have done to you had I actually been trying to get you to discredit yourself. Dang, I’m better than I thought.

J.

Really? All he said this time was that you also ignore points and chose instead to insult. In another thread you got insistent about calling JT a subhuman because (you claim) at yet another thread he’d not placed sufficiently high value on human lives which you viewed as a particularly callous and egregious attitude.

But now, he’s subhuman just because he says he (in your view) can’t tell the difference between an insult and a point being made?

My, how the bar has lowered.

Where did I insult you? Other than quoting verbatim your own post back at you and thereby betting that you are a “fucking liar” where did I insult you?

CSS: Every post I made here I had a point.

Which, if true (debatable (look it up)) often gets (as many have pointed out) completely obfuscated by your “debating style”.

CSS: It is possible to insult someone and address their argument at the same time.

But not necessary. And when it happens with such regularity it inevitably leads folks to believe you’re more interested in hurling insults than in responding to points. Which is hardly much of step above pure trolling.

Shut the fuck up, Jay Tea.

Every post I made here I had a point. Every single time I addressed what was said to me. It is possible to insult someone and address their argument at the same time.

Sean, on the other hand, ignored what I said and ONLY insulted me.

If you can’t tell the difference, then you truly are subhuman.

You ignored my point and instead insulted me. You did what you accused me of doing and that makes you a hypocrite. How do you defend yourself?

Um, Mr. Pot? There’s a Mr. Kettle on line two…

J.

Sean: “Since when have you engaged in debate?”

Two points…

1.) Look up the word debate. Here, I’ll do it for you…

onelook.com/?w=Debate&ls=a

This is clearly a debate. I offer reasons for my stance on the matter.
While this is not a formal debate, nothing on this site is.

2.) You ignored my point and instead insulted me. You did what you accused me of doing and that makes you a hypocrite. How do you defend yourself?

Since when have you engaged in debate?

Bullshit.

Jay Tea didn’t just express an impression, he tried to equate Freepers and the people who post at HuffPost. To say otherwise is to be fatally naive.

Got it?

If not, you are too fucking stupid to debate.

It sounds like you are finally coming around to understanding that.

Step 1: Jay Tea expresses an impression (“It seems…”)
Step 2: Some support is offered (To support an impression, remember. Not an absolute statement of fact.) but since CSS just doesn’t like Jay Tea it really doesn’t matter because CSS would be frothing at him no matter what he did.
Step 3: Several people offer friendly advice that CSS dial it back since his delivery is interfering with his message.
Step 4: CSS predictably dismisses any advice and revels in having more targets to rant at.
Step 5: Failing to convince anyone, CSS decides to interpret other’s comments as them finally coming around to see his view.