I was recently invited to take a stab at debate on a pro-Fox News/Glenn Beck facebook channel. Yes, I know... probably a poor idea, especially given the response from one of their locals when faced with being called out on logical fallacies and childish behavior. This really is just as bad as all the childish BS that you would expect to find on YouTube. The issue I had, though, was with someone, Maggie, misinterpreting what I said and continued to demonstrate a serious lack of understanding on the definition of the word "sexist". Also, looking at other comments, it seems like many of these people use scare tactic words that dont actually apply, are used incorrectly, or the generalizations are so profoundly ridiculous its hard to imagine a grown adult making them.
I have gone through and dissected the entire discussion, and I think it is pretty self-explanatory. What I would like to know is what the rest of you think: was that a sexist remark? Did Maggie avoid making logical fallacies? Was I too mean? Was I too soft? Was she justified in playing her Victim Card the way she did? Etc, etc.
Thanks in advance!
(last names have been omitted)
(this was taken from the comment section of one of Voiceof America's pictures. No, this is not the official "Voice Of America" media page, nor does it have any affiliation with it.)
(Origional comments are in white, my additional deconstruction is in red. Superscript notation added to help with specific association to points addressed.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Voiceof America and here is one for all the Obama supporters lol
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie You've found something Obama does well next to taking great vacations none of his every day supporters can afford.
Friday at 8:41am ·
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin And just think how much worse off we would be with the McPalin team.
18 hours ago ·
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie
There isn't any American Pres/VP duo who could possibly be worse than Obama/Biden's destruction and demise with the help of a Democrat-controlled Congress for two years and Dem-controlled Senate now. McCain's platform was nearly identical to that of JFK, which didn't make him the greatest GOP candidate, but he couldn't have done a worse job than Obama us doing and he wouldn't have had an agenda as destructive as Obama's get rich plan for his cronies.
16 hours ago ·
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin
Yes, actually, the McPalin team1 would have ended with open revolts against the government for their failure2. Palin wouldn't have a clue how to do anything3, and that is a very bad thing to have for a VP. McCain chose her because of her sex and religious affiliation to fill the gap when Clinton lost, thats the *only* reason anyone outside of Alaska knows about her4. Its friggin sad.
9 hours ago ·
1 - the phrase "McPalin team" is twofold: two specific individuals (McCain and Palin), and a team implies they are working together.
2 - Opinion - I dont think highly of McCain for many reasons, chief of which being his reasons for choosing Palin. That alone shows me he was more focused with getting into office than having a strong team to serve the people of this great country.
3 - Just about any interview or public event will betray her ignorance of the system in which she was supposed to be running. This was apparent shortly after McCain brought her to the public stage. Examples available on request, starting with these apt words from the Fox News Chief Political Correspondent, Nov 5, 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5BXMv64EfU
4 - Anyone confused about this probably doesn't remember the sequence of events: Clinton lost, McCain chooses Palin to try and get the women voters. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/29/how-mccain-chose-palin/ Further proof available/willing to research upon request, but will only do so after it is proven that the article was read and understood.
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie
The ability to know the hearts, minds, thoughts and future actions of people one barely knows is truly an uncanny gift1. While it's nice to indulge in predictions without any knowledge base2, right now, we only have facts, which tell us Obama, with full benefit of a Democratic Congress for two years has given us an economy only Jimmy Carter likes, since Carter now knows he isn't the worst president ever. While Canada, once saddled with a flagging economy worse than the US' in 2008, is experiencing growth and signs of recovery, the US isn't seeing the same signs of recovery and sinks further into a worse economy, thanks to Obama and Congressional Democrats3. While I appreciate your desire to repeat yourself and state your opinion4, there is nothing to back your statement5. ------------------------------------------------- I wasn't a big fan of McCain with his policies that looked more like JFK's back in the day, but even Biden wouldn't have done as miserably as Obama has6. ----See More
8 hours ago ·
1 - Sarcasm, deflection.
2 - bad assertion - we do have a great deal of knowledge, especially now, of how well it would have gone.
3 - Utterly invalid point and fallacious statement. Comparing Canada to USA, these two situations are not reliant on each other in any way, shape or form.
4 - sarcasm mixed with deflection: childish. I was expanding on my post, and stated the reason why McCain chose Palin in the first place (the start of later BS) which resulted in the loss of his election.
5 - baseless assertion; dismissal without examination or even asking to validate my position. This is a great sign of willful ignorance.
6 - gratuitous and off topic. Additionally, interesting to note Maggie didn't think much of McCain in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin
Sorry, Maggie, comparing Canada and USA by saying the only difference is our president really emphasizes the level of fallacious logic, pure BS, and profound ignorance of that position. Its okay to be upset, but willful ignorance and misplaced anger doesn't actually solve anything.
-Obama didn't "give" us this economy. Thinking like that just shows how much you really understand the system. Sure, it sucks right now and his policies might fail to do what they were intended, but that is no reason to blatantly ignore everything about it just so you can blame it all on one person. That is criminally negligent.
"While I appreciate your desire to repeat yourself..."
Do you know what the word "clarifying" or "explaining" means?1
"...there is nothing to back your statement."
You are certainly free to believe that :)
8 hours ago ·
1 - sarcasm begets sarcasm, especially in the face of apparently completely missing the point
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin
I'd also like to add that I think the Democratic and Republican parties have catastrophically screwed over this country as they no longer work for the country itself, but to promote their own ideals/agenda. They both need to be disbanded to prompt a complete, and modern overhaul of the system.
8 hours ago ·
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie
Mr. H, your abilities continue to astound since you now have the talent of just uttering something to make it true1 and have determined acidity now equates to an enlightened response2. My comment was one made in response to your opinion of your fantastical future vision3, which doesn't leave you in a position to be complaining about quality4, let alone bandying definitions5. It's peachy you possess the ability to explicate your uneducated opinions about your visions of events that didn't happen. I do agree though that our political parties are not serving us at all, so we have a common ground in that. However, I would never go so far as to say any president in history (thus far) could possibly be a lot worse than Soros' puppet, Obama, but then I have a lot of history and facts to back that6. I would also never say any other candidate would have been worse, as that would be akin to pointing out any guy on the street and proclaiming he would be a lousy father just because I said so...and not based on any facts7.
7 hours ago ·
1 - gratuitous sarcasm, probably used in order to avoid actually defending a position
2 - Yes, finding ways to not only say "fuck you" but to do it in an intelligent way that actually addresses the specific issue, rather than just displaying pure emotion without context or possibility of conclusion (which is a great way to start a flame war)
3 - Opinion, which again ignores any request for clarification of the point being made
4 - Complete lack of debate experience on Maggie's behalf. Quality is what matters in debate. Ignoring quality allows it to devolve into a flame war. Order and structure is required.
5 - Further proof of debate inexperience, and a lack of perception/understanding about the human language. Unless everyone knows what you are talking about, discussions become one way and no one will get anything out of it. Therefore, definitions are key.
6 - Self contradiction. "I would never..., but ...". Starting with the premise of never doing something but then allowing for a means to do it not very logical.
7 - The last statement of "...and not based on any facts" is the key that invalidates the entire point: I do have facts, specifically the complete inexperience and lack of political familiarity that has made Palin the laughing stock she is today.
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie
BTW, while throwing out definitions, it would be good to note only a sexist bigot would say a candidate was chosen solely for their gender and religious beliefs while ignoring all other factors.1
7 hours ago ·
1 - Inflammatory and spiteful via implication. First major sign of real childish behavior with emotional retaliation. The only other factors to consider support the conclusion: Clinton lost to Obama, McCain then chooses Palin after a mere week and only meeting her once. How much more blatant can one be?
Additionally, the fact that Maggie makes this statement is because I am a male. If a woman had made the same statement, would Maggie call her a sexist?
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin
"...only a sexist bigot would say a candidate was chosen solely for their gender and religious beliefs while ignoring all other factors."
Sexist: is the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas.
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
Neither of those apply to this conversation, my dear Maggie, since I am talking about one man's choice of candidate in a political race. I'm sorry, but you are getting far too emotional to deal with rationally. I already gave you the reasons for what I said about McCain's choice (Clinton losing, Palins religious affiliation).
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Clearly, you can not speak about this topic rationally. I've come to expect that from people like you.
7 hours ago ·
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin
I think it is pretty funny how you chose to attack me personally rather than ask for more information or to prove something. Very telling indeed.
Your only tools here seem to be the use of shameful logical fallacies based in childish emotional retaliation. Good luck with that in the future.
7 hours ago ·
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie
Mr. H- Again, just you saying something doesn't make it so1. You introduced the acidity2. It appears you can dish out an irrational opinion3, yet hate to be called on it. If you can't handle an intelligent response or females, in general, one might think you don't belong in the arena4. You've failed to notice your undeserved name-calling leaves you with three fingers pointing at yourself5. You'll also note my responses are directly to your statements, while yours are knee-jerk, angry, inane rhetoric for the sheer sake of it in petulant resistance to being caught in an uninformed rant, which continues6. Let me guess here...you're a liberal and you've played World of Warcraft a little too long, which is my opinion, but now backed by enough of your printed word to justify it7. One would also note you've now justified my opinion you are sexist and likely also a bigot8, as your comments do equate to same....EOE 101. And, good luck to you with your world of video games and your momma's couch9.
7 hours ago ·
1 - Of course not-thats why its called opinion, and opinions are usually backed up with reasoning. Instead of being dismissive, one should inquire about the reasoning instead.
2 - Acidity which was born from Maggie's initial sarcasm and dismissive attitude
3 - Assertion with no validation.
4 - Gratuitous and spiteful. I am specifically fishing for intelligent responses, yet only get emotional attacks.
5 - Hypocritical.
6 - Textbook psychological projection.
7 - Ad Hominum logical fallacy, x2. Additionally, how the hell does anything said belie playing a specific video game? It doesn't. Spiteful response with the intent to reciprocate emotional pain.
8 - Lie, spiteful. These accusations of bigotry and sexism were already made as statements of fact, thus, as they were already implied, they were not mere opinions by this time: statement is a lie.
9 - Inflammatory, Ad Hominem logical fallacy. Parroting my exact statement in the previous comment with the "good luck" is childish. The Ad Hominem comes in with the "momma's couch", iced with a belittling tone via word choice. This Ad Hominem is apparently linked to Maggie's fantasy of WoW players being stuck at home in their parents' home (second order Ad Hom? heh).
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin
"If you can't handle an intelligent response or females..."
Wow, seriously, do you even read what I type? Laughable.
"yet hate to be called on it"
If it was an intelligent deconstruction, I'd welcome the criticism. However, you do not inspire that kind of reaction from me, I'm sorry to say. Why not? Its simple: you are responding with fallacious and emotional retorts. Its very embarrassing.
"You've failed to notice your undeserved name-calling..."
It was all deserved, Maggie. To prove it, you didn't even know how to invoke the words "bigot" and "sexist" correctly, and in fact emulate both of those yourself instead. I'm sorry, Maggie, but you haven't been able to make a valid point yet.
"you're a liberal and you've played World of Warcraft a little too long"
Thank you! This really made me laugh! I will treasure this response for quite a while!
My dear, silly Maggie, you should not be trying to debate like this on the internet. You are an excellent example of an angry, active, yet clueless individual trying to stick up for concepts well beyond their own capacity1. You have just committed the final steps in your intellectual suicide, and it was very embarrassing to watch an adult behave like a child.2
Seriously, grow up.
7 hours ago ·
1 - This is based on the level of response to the points: nothing but emotional attacks after outright dismissing them.
2 - The abuse of Ad Hominum logical fallacies indicate a total breakdown of logical structure, which usually means it has reached the point to begin a flame war.
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin
Additionally, Maggie, in case you forgot how Palin came into the public eye:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/29/how-mccain-chose-palin/
Read the comments to get a feel for just how well she was received, and how insulted the American public was. Be sure to read how even the McCain female supporters were outraged at his blatant move to steal their vote. Seems like people forget things, important things, very easily.
The truth hurts, and it has nothing to do with your malicious insults to my character.
Rather than being angry and responding the way you did, you should have asked "WHY", that, at least, I could have respected.
6 hours ago ·
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie
To review: Mr. H comes to a conservative site and comments Palin was only chosen because of her gender, ignoring the other accomplishments of this woman1, then puffs he's not a sexist2. 20+ years in HR tells me, H is not only sexist,... but a delusional one3. Then, he bashes yet another woman4 for making statements5 to which his response has largely been name-calling6 and use of the dictionary7. ----- Then, a reference to his liberal leanings and penchant for World of Warcraft (WoW) is met with the uber-intelligent version of a raspberry8. ---- While WoW is on his list of activities9, as are a cadre of liberal zealots10. ----- Your retorts are only a few syllables shy of "na, na, na, na, na"11 and you have been exposed as a SEXIST12, just one who huffs and puffs in denial. If this is all you got, you shouldn't bother13.
6 hours ago ·
1 - Thats because her accomplishments were not a factor to McCain's choice. Even McCain supporters during the 2008 election could see this (see the link in the previous comment).
2 - Clearly, Maggie doesn't know what the word "sexist" means. It was McCain's bad choice, not Palin's, which is the whole point. There would still be a problem with McCain's choice EVEN IF Palin turned out to be a strong political candidate, OR if it was a male, but she wasn't, which further compounded McCain's error in judgement (which should have been to choose a strong person to help run the country, not to be a puppet to get more votes for getting into office without regard to how right she was for the job).
3 - Spiteful and baseless assertion.
4 - Playing the "Victim Card" logical fallacy. Just because I strongly disagree with her, and logically deconstruct everything, I'm suddenly "bashing" her and a "sexist"? Further evidence showing ignorance of the word.
5 - Maggie's "statements" have been emotionally spiteful and fallacious, not mere "statements".
6 - Blatant lie. Hypocrisy.
7 - Two words were defined, out of all of this... additionally, how the hell is the use of a dictionary a bad thing? I'm sure that will prompt jokes about Palin supporters and intelligence/education.
8 - Yes, .... abuse of logical fallacies, like the Ad Hominum and Red Herring (distraction tactic) are bad, and not acceptable in debates.
9 - Apparently the World of Warcraft makes me an evil person? (then so are the 12 million who play it, I guess... and what about all the other video game players? Are we all evil? Slippery Slope there)
10 - Spiteful name-calling. Carl Sagan is a liberal zealot? Dr Ken Miller, Catholic high school text book author? Eugenie Scott from the National Center for Science Education is a 'liberal zealot'?? Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennit, Harris, all zealots? More use of words (zealot) which Maggie doesn't actually use correctly.
11 - Childish lie, dismissive. Demonstrably false.
12 - Lie. Demonstrably false, and can actually prove Maggie doesn't know what the word means.
13 - Try actually reading what I type, next time.
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie
H info -- lists WoW as H's activity and H' inspirations coming from a Who's Who list of anarchists, capitalism-bashers, atheists and "we don't live in the real world, but we went to college" liberals, anarchists and atheists1. We have our first troll2. Why can't liberals ever send an intelligent one?3 It appears there are only angry, indignant, name-calling liberal trolls and we're getting the bottom of the barrel4...Justin must've missed the bus to the OWS camp rally5.
6 hours ago ·
1 - Hypocritical, inflammatory, spiteful, Red Herring. Hypocritical with the initial complaint waged against me for pretending to know the minds and hearts of people. List of anarchists... what? Not believing in a god has nothing to do with this conversation, that is a Red Herring.
2 - Hypocritical, inflammatory, definition ignorance. Maggie herself qualifies as a forum troll more than I do, as this is my first day here. You can not be a forum troll after a few hours. Clearly does not know what the word "troll" means, and uses hypocrisy in application of either common definition (troll as in being mean/rude, or a forum troll being someone who stays with a particular forum for a long period of time).
3 - Conspiracy Theory nut. Yes, because the "liberals" are out to get you... on... a random facebook page welcoming anyone .... totally.
4 - Hypocritical, Psychological Projection, Parroting, spiteful. Hypocritical in that she has clearly done all the above. Projection as that is exactly what she has done yet appears to think otherwise, and by projecting it on to me and attacking those attributes it somehow makes her feel better. Parroting as thats what I've been continuing to say she has been doing-not very creative to repeat what I accuse her of doing.
5 - Red Herring, assertion. The OWS camp has nothing to do with this, typical distraction tactic to try and demonize me. Not only that, but I actually dont agree with the OWS guys. Fail. Thats what happens when you make assumptions: you make an ass out of yourself. This failure could have been avoided if Maggie remembered the comment I made on Voiceof America's photo of the demotivational poster Ignorance.
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie
Yeah, Palin wasn't received well....well, not by your liberal crowd anyway.....that's fantasy world1. Otherwise, she's looking pretty successful on her own right2. Still doesn't erase that you ignored her accomplishments3 and said she was chosen for her gender....no matter how you rant and whine at me, your message was and is sexist4. Again, you're on a conservative site, so you need to bring something besides name-calling5. And, yeah, I get you don't respect my responses....I'm a woman and you're a sexist...wouldn't expect anything else from you6.
6 hours ago ·
1 - Dismissal, willful ignorance of additional material provided which invalidate the statement.
2 - Already demonstrated to show Palin has little understanding of the political system.
3 - Red Herring. Because they are irrelevant to the poor choice McCain made, which was specifically because of her gender. That has been established, years ago.
4 - Try using a dictionary.
5 - Hypocritical, blatant willful ignorance. Thats all Maggie has done, along with making logical fallacies, baseless assertions, etc etc, everything that would embarrass a Freshmen student on a debate team.
6 - Red Herring. It isn't the orientation of Maggie's genitals that I have been using as the basis for my arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin
"To review: Mr. H comes to a conservative site and comments Palin was only chosen because of her gender"
Start with a lie and the rest of your statement is meaningless. Look at the comment history, I said "McPalin", remember? The "Mc" refers to McCain.
I'm sorry, but at least try to be honest and not lie when its blatantly obvious.
6 hours ago ·
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie
@ JH-Deception from you, once again.... The H1 statement-direct quote: ".... PALIN wouldn't have a clue how to do anything, and that is a very bad thing to have for a VP. McCain chose HER because of her sex and religious affiliation..." (emphasis added)2 --- ---- --- Justin, I realize you're liberal and not accustomed to having your fantasy statements analyzed3, but the statement I just quoted is yours, you made the part about Palin quite clear, and your statement is SEXIST4. ----- Textbook sexist...the kind that would slap a lawsuit on you in the adult world of employment5.---- The whole "I said it, so it's real" only works in liberal land6...not in the land of adults contending with the real world7. And...Name-calling and insults blaming everyone for your difficulties here isn't a real response8. ----- Seriously, The Daily Kos would love you...you'd be with your own kind. ----- Even your dear Eugenie would scowl at you for this hooey. (You can look up the word, hooey, too.)9
5 hours ago ·
1 - Childish renaming. I'm now "The H"? Clear sign of emotional mood undermining logical capabilities. This usually happens with people who dont know what they are talking about try to make a stand for their "team" regardless of how well they can do.
2 - Yes, McCain did the choosing, not Palin. McCain is a male. HE made the bad choice. Palin's political inexperience and failings only helped to underscore exactly how big of a mistake that was. As stated before, it wouldn't have mattered which gender Palin was, it was still a bad choice to choose a VP the way he did.
3 - Psychological Projection. Only a maverick would say that! ... lol.
4 - Cherry Picking, invalid use of terms. Yes, and as I stated in the first two comments, I'm pointing out McCAIN's choice. Completely missing the point. The word sexist does not apply here.
5 - Need a dictionary for Maggie to look up the definition of the word "sexist".
6 - Hypocrisy, Psychological Projection.
7 - Hypocrisy, Psychological Projection. Not only has Maggie been shown to abuse logical fallacies, but also constantly employs childish tactics to avoid discussing the point.
8 - Hypocrisy, Psychological Projection, blatant lie/fabrication/Straw Man logical fallacy. .....how am I "blaming everyone"... at ANY point here? Which specific difficulties am I blaming "everyone" for?
9 - Baseless assertion with a fallacious appeal, hypocrisy. Now Maggie knows the mind and heart of someone's future actions for which she has no possible means of knowing?
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie
Dear Liberals, please send another troll1. The one you sent isn't even a challenge...just whining, blaming, false accusations, denial, deceit, feigned victimhood drama, and name-calling....it's like you sent Obama himself2. ........... And, geesh, he needs to use a dictionary just to respond3. ..................... Please send an intelligent liberal troll, one with information and facts...are there any4? ........................ The last time liberals got any information and facts or worked in the real world, they became conservative, so perhaps not5.
5 hours ago ·
1 - Invalid use of term. Needs to actually look up the definition of "forum troll".
2 - Conspiracy Nut, hypocritical, lying, Psychological Projection. My presence here in no way signifies a "liberal agenda" to specifically target this page, that is incredibly paranoid and quite pathetic. Every one of those accusations can be shown to be Maggie's own tools, if they can be shown to be done by either party in the first place.
3 - Lie, Red Herring. The lack of understanding of my word choice is not my fault, and if there is something one doesn't know the definition of, one should look it up (but, as Maggie has demonstrated-she seems to be willing to invent her own definition instead). Additionally, this is mere distraction and doesn't address any point, but more over signifies a particular disdain for intelligent and educated responses that actually form a common ground for a discussion. Making sure everyone knows what a word means before proceeding... thats somehow a bad thing? Also, citing a definition was done only twice, hours previous.
4 - Hypocrisy. Didn't Maggie accuse me of initially just repeating myself after my second comment?
5 - Gratuitous and childish lie.
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin
My 1st comment: "And just think how much worse off we would be with the McPalin team."
My 2nd comment: "Yes, actually, the McPalin team would have ended with open revolts against the government for their failure. Palin wouldn't have a clue... how to do anything..."
Do you know what the word "team" means1? Did you even read the article that I posted, or are you too willfully ignorant to dare to challenge your own pre-conceived notions?
So, lets see... because I'm a male making comments "only" about Palin supposedly (what a friggin joke), I'm automatically a sexist bigot, despite validating what I said with additional material?
Now, lets run a little thought experiment here: if I had posted that same comment, word for word, with an account that looked like it was a woman, would you call "her" a sexist bigot or just a bigot?
You are such an angry person, aren't you, Maggie? You have shamefully abused many logical fallacies, blatantly ignored points that refute your statements, resort to childish and malicious insults and tactics (such as the whole "The H" thing), and on and on.
I really feel sorry for you, Maggie2. You must be such a miserable person. I really wish the best for you.
2 hours ago ·
1 - Team implied more than one person, and working together. Maggie continues to completely miss the point that I'm mocking McCain's reasons for his choice, and Palin's political competency.
2 - Honesty. I really do feel sorry for how angry and upset Maggie must have been, so blinded by her own stubborn bigotry and apparent sexism.
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin
"Then, he bashes yet another woman..."
Awesome logical fallacy, Maggie. If we both made the exact same comments as we have here, yet we were both the same sex, does that suddenly negate your accusation of sexism?
Do you realize that this point alone makes YOU the sexist? The whole "HELP! A male doesn't agree with me, therefor he must be a sexist!" doesn't make you look very mature, and that is why I have a big issue with you now.
You are not thinking things through, you are just angry, spiteful, and reacting without reason. Your assumptions are unfounded, and your accusations are baseless.
I really hope you get over whatever it is that is infuriating you so that you are able to actually listen to what people have to say, ESPECIALLY when you dont agree with it.
2 hours ago ·
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie
@ H- You know you very clearly said, "PALIN wouldn't have a clue how to do anything"1...YOUR WORDS...then, you said Cain only "chose HER because of her sex and religious affiliation"2.......again, YOUR exact words. ........ You can spin this all you want and huff and puff and pretend you're somehow a victim and all the females who dare call you on your own words are icky-poo people....then spin your psycho babble3. ...... But, in the end, there are still your words...posted for all to see and they say it all, plainly4. ............... The appropriate response from you WOULD have been: I apologize for making a baseless, sexist comment about Palin, which wasn't my intent...that is, IF you weren't sexist5. ......... While a sexist response would be all the blabber you've been giving us, your red-faced, endless rambling, finger-pointing and mumbling about your faux victimhood6 .......... This is called self-incrimination. (I already hear you scrambling for your dictionary7.) Thanks for the well wishes, which sounded so genuine. ........ And, I wish you luck in college and with the real world, when you get there8.
about an hour ago ·
1 - Cherry Picking. And out of context, yes, that would be very sexist. However, we are talking about politics, and Palin has clearly demonstrated a very high level of failure in competency over the years. If she had been in the White House after that election, she would have been a miserable failure because of her experience, not because of the orientation of her genitalia.
2 - Cherry Picking. Yes, McCain chose her. McCain is the focus here, not Palin. It was McCain's choice I was referencing here. Point completely missed, even after being directly quoted.
3 - Psychological Projection multiple times, blatant dismissal and fabrication. I'm clearly not the spin doctor. Who exactly brought up the accusation of sexism first? Oh right, that was Maggie. Not only was I accused of being a sexist first, but Maggie also played her own Victim Card an hour previous.
4 - Exactly, and they are still here IN CONTEXT and without Maggie Cherry Picking.
5 - Childish. It would have been, if what I said wasn't taken out of context, spun, and if Maggie actually knew what the word sexist meant in the first place.
6 - Childish fabrication, Psychological Projection, Hypocritical. No, actually, it wouldn't. A sexist response would be sexist in nature, but then again its clear Maggie doesn't know what the word means. All this "blabber" is actually the logical deconstruction and specific highlighting of specific logical fallacies. Yet again, psychological projection: projecting her own negative characteristics/actions on to me and then attacking them. My "faux victimhood", oh really?
7 - Childish and inflammatory insult.
8 - Childish. My well wishes are sincere. Every human lives in the real world regardless of which political camp they think they side with.
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin
You are the one spinning. You are the one lying. You are the bigoted, sexist, hypocrite, and your comments prove it.
I'm not a victim, YOU are playing the victim card because I'm a male who doesn't agree with you. Grow up.
"I already hear you scrambling for your dictionary."
You are so damned childish. Why are you being like this? Did I really hurt you that badly, or do you behave like that to everyone who doesn't agree with you?
Again-sorry if my vocabulary is too far over your head. That doesn't give you the right to be vicious and spiteful-though I've come to expect that from people when they either dont understand something or feel like someone is deliberately trying to insult them by using big words.
I've spent years debating elsewhere, so that means I've had a lot of experience. I really wish you would slow down and think about this a little more
about an hour ago ·
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie
@ H-If you felt your statements about Palin only being chosen for her sex was NOT sexist....and IF you aren't sexist, then just apologize for the sexist statement1. ............ But, if you are sexist, then ramble on for a few thousand words about how you're making a point by being condescending2. ......... I think we readily see the direction you chose. Me thinks thou dost protest too much, Sparky. ....... I'm not angry, I just don't believe trolls should get to make inane statements, pretend to be victims, think derogatory remarks are an actual point, make up rules and spins as they go and play junior psychologist in arenas they aren't equipped to understand3. ......... You've made your sexist statement about Palin4. You've owned it. You've tried to deny being sexist by acting as though you meant the McCain/Palin team was chosen for their sex, when your words do not state this5. ....... But, you've not denied being a liberal troll nor have you retracted your statement about Palin only being chosen for her sex and religious affiliation6. ......... You've been calling me names since I first caught you in your sexist statement7, directly and implied, and worked yourself in your own snit and verbal tirades. ...... I don't need you to agree with me. ...... You've made yourself the poster child for the liberal caught being sexist....and now you're mad because you can't get by with it8. ..... Get over yourself..... If you can't handle the consequences of your own words, refrain from blabber9. ......... Or, as the women like to say, "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."10
1 - Not going to apologize for something that was misunderstood. That's why I've been trying to explain it: thats what you do when someone doesn't understand the point.
2 - Logical inconsistency. Being condescending has nothing to do with being a sexist. I'm being condescending because I believe it is warranted based on the responses given.
3 - Textbook Psychological Projection, hypocrisy.
4 - Maggie still doesn't understand what my point was actually about, nor what the word sexist actually means.
5 - A correct statement! I didn't ever say the McCain/Palin team was chosen for their sex. That is absolutely correct. I said that McCain chose Palin because of her sex, and further validated it with additional material.
6 - Hypocritical, Argument From Silence logical fallacy. Because I ignore a fallacious point, it must then be my position? Thats childish, and rather pathetic.
7 - Lie, hypocritical. And still, the word sexist doesn't apply. Pointing out logical fallacies is not "name calling", its addressing the problems with a person's argument.
8 - Childish fabrication.
9 - Psychological projection. Could this get any more blatant?
10 - Hypocritical. And cup de grase: she uses a sexist remark to end on, after all of that.... wow.
-----------------------------------------
And that is really all there is! If you have read all that, please leave your thoughts! The only comments I'll remove are the standard array of flamers and rabid fundamentals, but otherwise I'll let anyone have their say!
