Respectfully,
The SDM

Which claim? That I’m amused by your statement “”I will debate anyone in whatever form they want.”? Or my observation that you don’t respond to the point being made?

In either case, why should I bother? Why should I spend time locating the numerous examples in other threads where you refuse to modify the form of your debate, and the many places where you don’t respond to the point actually being made but instead pick some smaller beside-the-point aspect to pick apart and attack on.

What purpose would it serve? Can you show me any examples of you ever conceding a point or your making a shift in your position based on what others have said or the evidence they’ve presented?

You claim to be a reasonable man, governed by rational argument. How reasonable would it be for me to spend time gathering examples to attempt to sway a closed mind?

CSS: Who says? Where does it say you can’t have a point and swear at the same time? It this rule of yours based in science? Is it based on international law? Or is is something you just made up?

See, this is where I think some of the inconsistency in your own arguments breaks down a bit. I know you won’t agree or even acknowledge there might be a point there because, well, you tend not to agree with anything I say in this area simply because I’m the one to say it, and you apparently see yourself as flawlessly reasonable and no amount of reason will dent that self-image.

But, for example, you’ve referred to other posters here with derogatory terms, “sub-human” being the most notable. And your argument for that tends to resolve to: they’ve said something you personally find particularly unreasonable and callous so they are, QED, not human. Really? Where is the science, rule or international law to back that up? I certainly could put forward science that shows, despite what anyone may say/write, they are in fact still actually human.

Point being: Even lacking a rule or international law the statement that people don’t have sufficient support for their argument tend to cover that up with bluster isn’t unsupportable. And it’s the kind of supportable-but-perhaps-not-strictly-scientifically statement you’ve made yourself on occasion.

CSS: Why does that word matter to you? Having such a hang-up like that is a personal weakness of yours and is something you should try and fix.

Another example of a double stantard of sorts at work? Who has the hang up? A person who says using “fuck” isn’t ever necessary, or the person who insists on using it?

That looks fine on paper. White paper.

I would have to read this fellow, however, the core of Fascism is economic planning and statism which would seem to be antithetical to capitalism or economic liberalism.

No, you really don’t. No one should. You got right to the gist of it right there in that one sentence. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Well done, sir.

Yes, but according to Jonah Pantload, that’s Fascism.”

I would have to read this fellow, however, the core of Fascism is economic planning and statism which would seem to be antithetical to capitalism or economic liberalism.

Respectfully,
The Squid

I curse plenty, CS, when I stub my toe, when my dog does his business on the carpet, just not when I try to make an argument.

I was more referring to you calling me a “Liar. Fucking liar” and then talking around my point.

You justification that modern conservatism does indeed support racism is that the Republican part chose to court racist idiots 30+ years ago. That is not an argument, it is a statement which does not contradict anything I said. Nixon was not a conservative so his adoption of that strategy proves nothing.

The tenents of modern conservatism are decidedly un-racist, individual achievement and equal economic opportunity.

Markets open to all not just those who are white.

Support of military service which arguably did much to ease integration and allow the civil rights movement to gain widespread support from northern whites.

These things are not the core of a racist society, neither are they the philosophy of a movement so hung up on collective guilt that they can not move foreward without taking two steps back.

Respectfully,
The Squid

Clearly you need to take rhetoric class as much as I need a economics class.

Respectfully,
The Squid

Yes, but according to Jonah Pantload, that’s Fascism.

Is squidboy the new dugger, or the new frank?

Wondering that myself. Frank v2.0

Then why did you respond?

“- You didn’t, because you keep talking around the point being made.”

This is simply a lie. I gave a post-by-post breakdown showing that I advanced my argument every single time.

“- Thanks for providing the example of the above. I deliberately didn’t respond to your style/substance comment but to your claim you can debate in any form the other side wants, yet THAT isn’t what you responded to. You responded to what I didn’t comment on.”

In other words, you ignored my main point, went on a tangent, an complain about me doing exactly what you did.

Fine. How’s this for going right at your argument.

… Prove it. You made a claim, supply some evidence.

Who says? Where does it say you can’t have a point and swear at the same time? It this rule of yours based in science? Is it based on international law? Or is is something you just made up?

“I can say “fuck” a hundred times, it does not make my argument stronger, it just makes me look like a jerk.”

Again, who says? Why does that word matter to you? Having such a hang-up like that is a personal weakness of yours and is something you should try and fix.

In order:
- No. (Not that I expect that will stop you.)
- You didn’t, because you keep talking around the point being made.
- Thanks for providing the example of the above. I deliberately didn’t respond to your style/substance comment but to your claim you can debate in any form the other side wants, yet THAT isn’t what you responded to. You responded to what I didn’t comment on.

You seem to have neither.

Because only fools with nothing to back up their argument use swear words in it.

I can say “fuck” a hundred times, it does not make my argument stronger, it just makes me look like a jerk.

BTW, Thank you for the advice Haplo.
Respectfully,
The Squid

Sean: “Must… not… laugh.”

You want to go through this debate, again. You would think after kicking your ass the last time it would have sunk in. Or do I need to cut and paste the definition of style over substance in every response to you?

Must… not… laugh.

Hey, I call them like I see them and I will treat people with as much dignity and respect as they deserve. If someone lies, I’m going to say they lied.

Also, I’m not a child. I’m not scared of a four-letter word, which apparently you guys are. Why is that?

On the other hand, I will debate anyone in whatever form they want. I don’t ignore someone’s point and concentrate on their style, because that would not be intellectually honest.

Oliver will rarely honestly debate the merits of his positions (but his commenters will) regardless of contrary evidence, so don’t expect to hear anything meaningful from him.

C.S. is an example of the old saw: Arguing with him is like wrestling with a pig, at the end you are both filthy and exhausted –and you get the distinct feeling that the pig enjoyed the experience.

Squid Shark: “Classy.”

Got a problem with what I said? Then next time you shouldn’t fucking lie.

Squid Shark: “Once again, I say…
There is no room for racism in modern conservative philosophy.”

Once again, I say…
The ‘modern conservative’ movement is using racism to win elections. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it any less of a lie.

Squid Shark: “But ‘liberals’ today advocate socialist/statist policy.” … “I contend that ‘liberals’ today are trying to re-hash and reheat a failed economic system whose inevitable result is the antithesis of American Ideals.”

I bet you can’t even define socialism.

How far is too far?

You can define liberal however you want. Yes in the classic sense, liberals are anyone pushing for change. But is it always good change. Capitalism is considered to be Liberal Economic Policy or Classic Liberalism. But “liberals” today advocate socialist/statist policy. So yes, in your definition, conservatives WERE on the wrong side of the issues. I contend that “liberals” today are trying to re-hash and reheat a failed economic system whose inevitable result is the antithesis of American Ideals.

Respectfully,
The Squid