Reply #375: That's the first honest thing you've said. You are explaining crap. [View All]

[MGD]

Your entire argument is circular in nature; in other words, it isn't because I say it isn't despite the fact that there is evidence to suggest that it is. So, once more, into the breach we go.

"Now you're splitting hairs and it's clear that you have no argument."

That has been you throughout this argument. I'm not splitting hairs, I'm keeping you honest (or rather trying to keep you honest).

"The FACT remains that you have NOTHING to back up your idiotic statement, and my reply was about exactly that (something you perpetually refuse to recognize)."

You consistently toss about absolute terms like NOTHING and PROOF while ignoring certain obvious truths. The fact is, there is SOMETHING to back up my original premise and that is A.) your loud and emotional response + your avatar which both tend to suggest that you are a disgruntled socialist and B.) another poster immediately chimed in and admitted to being a socialist.


"Next, you're sure that I'm "disgruntled"? How cute, making even more conclusions have know nothing about (sic)."

The gerneral demeanor of your posts within this thread strongly suggest that you are an angry person. You haven't been able to make a point without lacing it with insults and emotions throughout this entire discourse. You are clearly angry about something. For you to suggest otherwise is utter nonsense.

"The possibility of my political persuasion does not equal "some"."

It is more of a probability than a possibility and it absolutely, irrefutably, undeniably does "equal some" as "any" equals "some" by any stretch of the definition. There are basically two kinds of people who sport Che-wear, those who don't know anything about him but think it's cool anyways and those who know that he was a Marxist leader and respect him for it. I infer that you are of the latter group. That being the case, it is highly probable that you are a socialist or, even more probably, a full blown Marxist. Either way, you wouldn't sport the avatar if you weren't in alignment with the socialist philosophies to a significant degree. A denial on your part would be laughable.

"my political persuasion (one which has yet to have been established) does not indicate anything about that very group."

Wrong on all accounts. Your political persuasion, at least on a superficial level, is, based on your avatar, obviously left enough to be considered socialist and, as I have already asserted, probably left enough to be considered Marxist.


"Using your logic, my avatar means everyone on DU admires Che and has my political views, since I'm a member of the group in question."

No it doesn't. That is a fallacy. Using my logic, people on DU sporting Che Avatars are probably socialists. The entire DU group is not in question here; only that portion of the DU group who is involved in this thread and loudly cheering for Hugo Chavez.

"You COULD make assertions about MY political persuasion, but you're making assertions about a group far bigger and far more diverse than me, so you can't."

It is a very small group that I refer to and it consists only of the loudest Chavez cheerleaders confined within the body of this thread and it therfeore includes you. I know it includes you because I have taken the liberty of reading your previous posts within this thread.

"Why are you bringing up the other generalization? It doesn't have a single thing to do with our argument."

Of course it doesn't in your mind. In the real world, however, it is very much pertenent to the argument. This argument was originaly between Judi Lynn and myself until you interupted. To now say that the previous argument has no bearing on this argument is false because this entire argument ultimately stems from her generalization, not mine. It is convenient for you to ignore that point but it is valid none-the-less.

"I never made that generalization, nor did I defend it, so it has nothing to do with this discussion."

maybe, maybe not; however, you have injected yourself into an argument that stems from her generalization, not mine. It is; therefore, very much disingenuous of you to attack my generalization while ignoring/avoiding hers.

"The fact that you tried to bring it up further shows that you don't have an argument."

Actually it shows that I was pissed off that you disingenuously brushed over it the last time around with your lubricious "MY" argument. I have already succesfully defended my original statement: "Pretty fucking stupid statement considering your avatar." I simply wished to point out the duplicitous nature of your arguments.