Debra K
Gold Member
- Jul 10, 2015
- 852
- 327
- 180
Let's examine your signature quote: "On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I'm just amazed how many people choose to be stupid."
Isn't it stupid for you to portray yourself as an expert on "liberals" or "liberalism"?
Your diatribe discloses that you went to the fountain of knowledge and took one little sip ... and that lone sip was from a page of somebody else's hate manual.
That's stupid.
Making broad unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations about an entire class of people is stupid.
Why do you choose to be stupid?
Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack your opponent, not the issue.
Well done.
Spare_Change:
Earlier in this thread, I responded to another person's diatribe as follows:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."
If you would be willing to engage in a little self education, can you tell me the source of those words and what they mean? wasn't your diatribe the product of "intoxication"?
Furthermore, because you're the one making the conclusions, you're the one that has the burden of proof. In other words, you need to actually make an argument in support of your conclusions before you may expect anyone else to come forward with a counter-argument.
I would simple point you to your own post #46, in which you, I assume intentionally, attempted to deflect the focus away from the issue at hand, and to turn that light on my personal characteristics. By doing so, you changed the direction of the discussion - not because it was an attempt to broaden the discussion, but rather, an attempt to conceal the simple truth that you didn't have a cogent response.
When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof. An opinion is just that - it is not a educational treatise, designed to lead you out of the darkness. It is a statement of position - an ideological stake driven in the ground, if you will Given the broad breadth of the subject originally under discussion (before your digression), the character limit forbade me expanding in sufficient depth.
However ... if you wish, I will be more than happy to expound on my opinion in any of the areas you wish to discuss. (Make sure you pick one you know something about). Which will it be?
1) Liberals are concerned with equal result, not equal opportunity.
2) Liberal are concerned with compensation, not contribution.
3) Liberals are concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort.
4) Liberals are concerned with mediocritizing the educational system, rather than maximizing the growth of each individual.
5) Liberals are concerned with centralization of power, rather than maximizing individual growth.
6) Liberals are inherently egotistical and arrogant. (I'll throw that one in for free.)
Pick one and let me know ...
By the way ... citing a quote by Alexander Pope, out of context, serves no purpose other than to contribute to validating No. 6 above. It proves nothing about your intellectual capabilities, other than your ability to plagiarize someone else (without attribution) when your own words fail you. To try to paint yourself with this false patina of knowledge is, in a phrase, intellectually dishonest. Pope's poem was a dissertation on the damage done by critics - to the point that he even said that bad critiques do more damage to the art of poetry than bad poets . Your misrepresentation is reprehensible..
Or, as my ol' daddy used to say ... bring it on, sweet cheeks, but you better be willing to stay for the whole ride..
Stupid Definition of stupid by Merriam-Webster
Stupid: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting
Like every other member on this board, you take your signature space with you everywhere you post. The words or images you choose to place in your signature space are a reflection upon you. In that space, you state, “On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I’m just amazed how many people choose to be stupid.” Thus, you claim some special ability to recognize “stupid”, but fail to recognize it in yourself. Amazing, indeed.
In my opinion, your diatribe on liberals was stupid. I gave you my reasons for stating your diatribe was stupid.
Then you stupidly said that I didn’t make a counter-argument. You have to make an argument first before you can expect someone to make a counter-argument. Where was your argument? It didn’t exist.
It took you two days to come up with a response. Now you claim you just offered an opinion. In that regard, you claim that you’re not required to substantiate your opinion.
What little bit of learning you have had is dangerous because you now think you’re an expert and can sit in judgment of other people’s stupidity. And that is stupid. If you don’t want that word used against you, then take it out of signature space and start educating yourself.
I have had a ton of education … a ton … and the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. But I’m thirsty for knowledge. But you have no thirst at all. You would rather make brainless generalizations and contribute nothing to the world of critical thinking. That’s stupid.
Stick your silly bravado where the sun doesn’t shine. Your “bring it on, sweet cheeks” doesn’t impress anyone but yourself. If you have a valid argument to make, make it. If you don’t know the components of a valid argument, look it up.
Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.
You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."
In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.
Well done. I directly challenged you, and the best you can do is attack my signature? Seriously? And, you want to match degrees? Isn't that a bit childish? Then, you want to make a big deal out of the fact that it took two days to respond? Damn - I have a life. Don't you? Another adolescent attack.
If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.
If you don't want to discuss the suppositions offered, I understand. You want to talk trash, but obviously, you're unwilling to talk issues and facts. Pick a supposition and challenge it - until then, your childish little tirade is b-o-r-I-n-g.
The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.
If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.
I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?