An Interesting Theory

[random3434]

Caligirl said;

Accusing a group with the actions of an individual is not the response of an intelligent person.

I said:

Yeah, you may want to get that memo out to about everyone that posts on here, and on every message board in the country.

Libtards, neocons, DemocRATS, nutters, rightwing loons, et al..just look at the titles of all the thread here.

So posters, why do you do it? Does it make you come across as smart? Do you think others will listen to your views when you START OUT a title or a thread already attacking?

Let us hear your reasoning behind it, from BOTH SIDES please.

 

[Sherry]

I think they just prefer wearing their contempt for the opposition on their sleeve.

 

[Dis]

While others may not listen, you can't deny that someone starting a thread with a blatant attack WILL get responses within seconds, whereas something less inflammatory might have to wait a few minutes longer for responses. It's a simple attention getting mechanism.

 

[Cuyo]

Caligirl said;

Accusing a group with the actions of an individual is not the response of an intelligent person.

I said:

Yeah, you may want to get that memo out to about everyone that posts on here, and on every message board in the country.

Libtards, neocons, DemocRATS, nutters, rightwing loons, et al..just look at the titles of all the thread here.

So posters, why do you do it? Does it make you come across as smart? Do you think others will listen to your views when you START OUT a title or a thread already attacking?

Let us hear your reasoning behind it, from BOTH SIDES please.

Yes. Neocon Republitard fascists are very receptive to being insulted. They're a little bit sadist in that respect.

 

[Modbert]

While others may not listen, you can't deny that someone starting a thread with a blatant attack WILL get responses within seconds, whereas something less inflammatory might have to wait a few minutes longer for responses. It's a simple attention getting mechanism.

Not only starting with a blatant attack but certain names or issues are quick to get lots of responses.

Good example: The Pharmacist Abortion thread I started yesterday already has 79 replies. Another thread about Abortion and Birth Control of mine has 197 replies. Other threads on issues that are less inflammatory get far less attention.

 

[dilloduck]

We need someone to hate. All the other groups that we used to have fun hating are now "protected". It's a result of trying to legislate morality.

 

[Liability]

It hardly matters.

I have asked a few times for some commentary in support of the Obama Presidency to date. The thread TITLES were inoffensive. But since I dared to pose the questions in a way that expressed my dismissive attitude toward President Obama, the liberals who replied to it at all were pretty much unwilling to address the actual question. They preferred, instead, to focus on the manner in which the question was posed.

I say that's a bullshit evasion technique. What actual difference does it make if you ask a question in a pristine and civil fashion or if you insert some editorial opinion into the way you ask the question? It becomes somehow impossible to ignore the eidtorialization of the questioner and answer the question?

Similarly, if the thread title contains a flaming disparagement of one's opposing political number, that will always be incidental to the question itself. If the question is legitimate (regardless of how it's couched) then the question can be answered.

What I don't get is when a member addresses a question to "Tea Baggers" for instance. Why would I want to tacitly agree with the premise of the idiot asking a stupid "question" like that? I reject that title, so I don't recognize the question as being put to me. That's different than merely inserting a political editorial spin on an otherwise general question.

 

[Cuyo]

It hardly matters.

I have asked a few times for some commentary in support of the Obama Presidency to date. The thread TITLES were inoffensive. But since I dared to pose the questions in a way that expressed my dismissive attitude toward President Obama, the liberals who replied to it at all were pretty much unwilling to address the actual question. They preferred, instead, to focus on the manner in which the question was posed.

Frankly I think we're all here looking for a fight. Sure, you may have used non-inflammatory language in creating the thread, but did anyone have any doubt as to the direction you would be looking to steer it?

edit: And don't get me wrong, the same would go for me or anyone else...

 

[Jackson]

Caligirl said;

Accusing a group with the actions of an individual is not the response of an intelligent person.

I said:

Yeah, you may want to get that memo out to about everyone that posts on here, and on every message board in the country.

Libtards, neocons, DemocRATS, nutters, rightwing loons, et al..just look at the titles of all the thread here.

So posters, why do you do it? Does it make you come across as smart? Do you think others will listen to your views when you START OUT a title or a thread already attacking?

Let us hear your reasoning behind it, from BOTH SIDES please.

You know as well as I that it surely doesn't come out as intelligent but reaches out to other inflammatory posters to up the ante. I'd rather read a thread with intelligent debate with facts and interesting opinions. But that's just me.

 

[Meister]

I just can't believe all the rhetoric from both sides without a shred of evidence.
I guess it's human nature for some to respond the way they do. Others just bait to get a response.

 

[Liability]

It hardly matters.

I have asked a few times for some commentary in support of the Obama Presidency to date. The thread TITLES were inoffensive. But since I dared to pose the questions in a way that expressed my dismissive attitude toward President Obama, the liberals who replied to it at all were pretty much unwilling to address the actual question. They preferred, instead, to focus on the manner in which the question was posed.

Frankly I think we're all here looking for a fight. Sure, you may have used non-inflammatory language in creating the thread, but did anyone have any doubt as to the direction you would be looking to steer it?

edit: And don't get me wrong, the same would go for me or anyone else...

The nature of ANY debate is one side takes the "pro" position and the other side takes the "con" position. I obviously believe that the Obama Administration has been a massive failure to date in most regards.

So?

I didn't expect anybody who thinks otherwise to agree with me. What I did expect was that maybe some of the liberals might be able to logically discuss the proposition that he hasn't been a failure by resorting to verifiable facts and logical syllogisms.

I don't dislike everything about President Obama. I do find his politics to be odious. Liberals are free to disagree, but, for example, I would love to hear a liberal provide a REASONED defense of why President Obama's so-called "Obamacare legislation" imposes an assortment of new taxes on us for several years before most of the program itself (by law) kicks in. Is it overly really unfair or unreasonable to suggest that such legislation is insidious and cynical?

 

[Dis]

It hardly matters.

I have asked a few times for some commentary in support of the Obama Presidency to date. The thread TITLES were inoffensive. But since I dared to pose the questions in a way that expressed my dismissive attitude toward President Obama, the liberals who replied to it at all were pretty much unwilling to address the actual question. They preferred, instead, to focus on the manner in which the question was posed.

Frankly I think we're all here looking for a fight. Sure, you may have used non-inflammatory language in creating the thread, but did anyone have any doubt as to the direction you would be looking to steer it?

edit: And don't get me wrong, the same would go for me or anyone else...

I'm here looking for peace and quiet.

 

[Liability]

It hardly matters.

I have asked a few times for some commentary in support of the Obama Presidency to date. The thread TITLES were inoffensive. But since I dared to pose the questions in a way that expressed my dismissive attitude toward President Obama, the liberals who replied to it at all were pretty much unwilling to address the actual question. They preferred, instead, to focus on the manner in which the question was posed.

Frankly I think we're all here looking for a fight. Sure, you may have used non-inflammatory language in creating the thread, but did anyone have any doubt as to the direction you would be looking to steer it?

edit: And don't get me wrong, the same would go for me or anyone else...

I'm here looking for peace and quiet.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Caligirl said;

Accusing a group with the actions of an individual is not the response of an intelligent person.

I said:

Yeah, you may want to get that memo out to about everyone that posts on here, and on every message board in the country.

Libtards, neocons, DemocRATS, nutters, rightwing loons, et al..just look at the titles of all the thread here.

So posters, why do you do it? Does it make you come across as smart? Do you think others will listen to your views when you START OUT a title or a thread already attacking?

Let us hear your reasoning behind it, from BOTH SIDES please.

Yes. Neocon Republitard fascists are very receptive to being insulted. They're a little bit sadist in that respect.

Oh... the irony.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I prefer the string theory.

 

[uscitizen]

Dis sure is in the wrong place then

This type of place attracts those who enjoy posturing in an autonomous environment without fear for reprisal. ie getting punched in the face or somesuch.
And yes many are just seeking a knee jerk response kind of attention just like children who misbehave at home as a way of getting attention.
Many tend to do things here they would never do face to face.
Such as myself freely admitting to all that I am an atheist. Boy would that get me on the major shun list with most around here

 

[RadiomanATL]

Or the buttered cat paradox.

 

[uscitizen]

Shrodinger buttered his cat?

 

[xotoxi]

Caligirl said;

Accusing a group with the actions of an individual is not the response of an intelligent person.

I said:

Yeah, you may want to get that memo out to about everyone that posts on here, and on every message board in the country.

Libtards, neocons, DemocRATS, nutters, rightwing loons, et al..just look at the titles of all the thread here.

So posters, why do you do it? Does it make you come across as smart? Do you think others will listen to your views when you START OUT a title or a thread already attacking?

Let us hear your reasoning behind it, from BOTH SIDES please.

Are you trying to indoctrinate me with your Islamophilic gay agenda?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Shrodinger buttered his cat?

Buttered cat paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia