Has anybody EVER actually clicked on one of Merv's links and read whatever it was all the way through?
I usually do. Depending on the topic at hand, I'll either give it a full read or at least enough to gain an understanding of the point. Some of the more recent ones he posted for me have been very informative.
That applies to most everyone who puts up a link. If they feel it's important enough to link it, then it's on me to look at it. Why cheat myself out of what could be valuable information?
|||Quote:Ah, the point of the number is that's a staggering number of families that have never worked a day in their lives, the percentage of the population notwithstanding.
You can only call something staggering if you have something to compare. When we compared it, it wasn't that staggering at all. It is also pointless in the debate because the number doesn't prove or disprove the immorality of Atheism. It only proves that ~2% of the population are a bunch of lazy no good for nothings, and yeah well, from experience I'd say at least 2% of any given population belongs to that category.
In reality, you were just behaving in your usual way of linking to irrelevant stuff and then hoping no one will notice.
Quote:
Shall we simply go to flinging feces now, in defense of your belief system?
And this is coming from the guy who wrote the book about the sport of feces flinging? Could you make yourself anymore irrelevant? Well, I'm sure your're gojnna go ahead and try again.
Do your best.
Quote:
Has anybody EVER actually clicked on one of Merv's links and read whatever it was all the way through? This is almost a poll-worthy question
Sure. Although always irrelevant to the topic, it usually good for a laugh or two.
|||Quote:Its safer just to assume that he is lying about it, since he knows most people won't check it.
This is nonsensical; did you just say it to be insulting? How can a link lie?
Quote:
You can only call something staggering if you have something to compare. When we compared it, it wasn't that staggering at all.
This is also nonsensical. I found it staggering when a pair of hoodlums broke into their dealer's house, raked* and slaughtered his family including two underage girls, and then burnt down the house. Perhaps you don't, which would indicate why you also don't think that being a parasite is immoral and unethical?
Quote:
It is also pointless in the debate because the number doesn't prove or disprove the immorality of Atheism.
Agreed, but I already stated that was corollary rather than causative.
Quote:
It only proves that ~2% of the population are a bunch of lazy no good for nothings, and yeah well, from experience I'd say at least 2% of any given population belongs to that category.
Actually, that's not valid statistically, because you're measuring households. Those would also include vacation homes, IIRC, nor do the underclasses have lower population in those homes than do rural owners. You'd have to drill down in the data to identify per capita numbers to honestly know whether the number is as irrelevant as you'd prefer it to be.
Quote:
And this is coming from the guy who wrote the book about the sport of feces flinging? Could you make yourself anymore irrelevant?
This is patently dishonest and untrue. I don't hurl poop at others, particularly as I'm usually the target for such personalized abuse.
The only way you can make such a claim is by recognizing that "socialist", "atheist", "Leftist", &c. truly <ARE> the vile beliefs that I consider them, and you & yours insist that they are not only <not> vile but are superior to the relative opposites. If you call me a Christian, a conservative, or a Libertarian, do I think you're insulting me? Hardly; you're simply labeling me with accuracy the same way I've labeled you accurately. So instead, you'll call me a lunatic, stupid, hypocrite, fascist, "teabagger" (aka homosexual genital sucker) and so on.
*replace k with p, obviously|||Quote:
This is nonsensical; did you just say it to be insulting? How can a link lie?
I didn't just say it to be insulting, flooding people with information is a good way to make people not check everything out and 'hopefully' they will just assume you are correct.
How can a link lie?
I don't know if you've realized this yet but...wait for it...not everything you read on the internet is true
Even many of the things that you believe to be true are at least grossly biased.|||Quote:
Has anybody EVER actually clicked on one of Merv's links and read whatever it was all the way through? This is almost a poll-worthy question*.
I started asking myself this question after the most recent Coulter link.
*I said almost.
On occasion. There's a lot of opinion pieces; sometimes they are relevant and pertinent, sometimes they don't have much to do with anything, and a few times they manage to contradict whatever point he's making.
Quote:
This is patently dishonest and untrue. I don't hurl poop at others, particularly as I'm usually the target for such personalized abuse.
Nope. Constant abuse of anyone who disagrees with you is your usual MO. You just phrase it in such a way that you can run away from it if someone calls you on it.
To quote... yourself:
Quote:
...I usually couch negative references to people carefully (as in, "What are you, an idiot?" or "It would be stunningly foolish to take the stance you just took!"). Other users? I just use colorful phraseology.|||Quote:
I didn't just say it to be insulting, flooding people with information is a good way to make people not check everything out and 'hopefully' they will just assume you are correct.
Well, while I try to post amusing and corroborative links, it's not an attempt to 'flood' anyone. Often, it's an attempt to slap people who hold smugly ignorant positions.
Quote:
How can a link lie?
I don't know if you've realized this yet but...wait for it...not everything you read on the internet is true
That's not what you said. How can an address URL lie? It's nonsense.
Quote:
Even many of the things that you believe to be true are at least grossly biased.
The same can be said of most everyone. Point of fact is that many children on the Internet, particularly ones of European nationality, are grotesquely ignorant of economics and politics. This is because the Socialist left has dominated Europe for so long, and the evil of the USSR has been downplayed and mocked (while hiding under American skirts) for so long, that the realization of misery that the prior generation had is all but dead.
Quote:
On occasion. There's a lot of opinion pieces; sometimes they are relevant and pertinent, sometimes they don't have much to do with anything, and a few times they manage to contradict whatever point he's making.
Earth to Naz - many times I'm using them as humor/props.
Quote:
Nope. Constant abuse of anyone who disagrees with you is your usual MO.
Hardly. Abuse of political beliefs, most certainly - it just so happens that some of you are so tightly aligned with certain policies, like you with what passes as the yobbos politics, that I can't insult the one without insulting the other.
The only two individuals I consistently despise on the OTF are Llad12 and SonataArctica (who I've gone so far as to put on ignore). I think you mistake my teasing as hostility... not that it comes as a surprise.
Quote:
To quote... yourself:
Sure. It also gives wonderful opportunities to make those abusing me look like vermin while I play the martyr.|||Quote:
I usually do. Depending on the topic at hand, I'll either give it a full read or at least enough to gain an understanding of the point. Some of the more recent ones he posted for me have been very informative.
That applies to most everyone who puts up a link. If they feel it's important enough to link it, then it's on me to look at it. Why cheat myself out of what could be valuable information?
Because that valuable information might not agree with what you believe to be true.
Don't you think it is a lot easier to just continue to believe whatever it is you want and deride anything to the contrary?
It seems plenty of people take this easy way out.|||The problem with internet links, aside from nobody reading them, is that its too easy to fall into a game of "Who can use Google the most." You just get a series of posts containing links that contradict each other and nobody presenting an actual argument.
That's not to say internet links have no value of course. They just need to be used sparingly IMO.|||Quote:
They just need to be used sparingly IMO.
I disagree. Far too often I find myself arguing against someone who basically makes up shyte and claims it to be solid. Even though many of my citations are opinion, they provide background so that I don't need to go through the same freakin' thing every time.
Take the long-past Anthropomorphic Global Warming argument thread - I forget who the guy even was, but he claimed all manner of credential and insisted that anyone who doubted AGW was essentially stupid or evil, while I argued that relying on heavily spun computer modeling was laughable. In hindsight, I wonder what he'd claim nowadays given the drumbeat of refutation on the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment