BF2S Forums WND are a bunch of assholes ; Kids attend "prom from hell"

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Reasons like this are why I can't help but laugh when lowing (or anyone, he just happens to do it more than often) uses WND as a source and tries to pass it off as credible.

For once, before I die, try and knock the information rather than the source. I don't care who writes the articles, I care or not if it is true. I wish you felt the same way. Your arguments againsts posts would be much more interesting.

If a source is conservative or liberal does not matter, if what they say true is the is what matters.

Of course you don't care who writes the articles.

Because every time they're heavily biased.

But of course you don't mind that.

no  I don't mind that, as long as what is written is the TRUTH. Try finding me an article about pro-choice that is not biased. Does this make the articles arguments invalid. No, in fact it is the biased articles that present arguments for their view point. It is then left up to the reader if it is a good enough argument to render legitimacy to the point.

Only a liberal uses excuses such as "biased articles", "you're generalizing",  and "you're a racist", "you're close minded" as the basis for a counter argument. In fact, these are not arguments at all, it is filler used when an argument does not present itself to bolster your viewpoint. No other group does this bullshit. Everyone else posts legit arguments to back up their view points. The reason this is, is because there is no defense for modern liberalism in America. It is trying to defend laziness and irresponsibility, and it can not be done without using your blanket coverage retorts.

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Of course you don't care who writes the articles.

Because every time they're heavily biased.

But of course you don't mind that.

no  I don't mind that, as long as what is written is the TRUTH. Try finding me an article about pro-choice that is not biased. Does this make the articles arguments invalid. No, in fact it is the biased articles that present arguments for their view point. It is then left up to the reader if it is a good enough argument to render legitimacy to the point.

Only a liberal uses excuses such as "biased articles", "you're generalizing",  and "you're a racist", "you're close minded" as the basis for a counter argument. In fact, these are not arguments at all, it is filler used when an argument does not present itself to bolster your viewpoint. No other group does this bullshit. Everyone else posts legit arguments to back up their view points. The reason this is, is because there is no defense for modern liberalism in America. It is trying to defend laziness and irresponsibility, and it can not be done without using your blanket coverage retorts.

No, anyone with an IQ higher than that of a rock uses "excuses" like what you listed. Because they're not excuses. 99% of the time concerning your posts, they're absolutely true.

Ken was right about you. You make up arguments all the time just for the sake of arguing. You accuse people of having viewpoints they don't all the time, you accuse people of being a liberal when they disagree with you, and you'll throw out the same rhetoric you always do, regardless of whether it actually even applies to the topic at hand. It seems that GS was also right. I believe he said something like "once someone's credibility is gone, they can never get it back". Sums you up nicely.

I have never argued against someone elses viewpoint by using those bullshit catch all excuses that you use, and yes you are one of those that uses them. I will stand toe to toe arguing my opinion, without not dismissing yours, or casting insults (much ). Give it a try.

When I read pro appeasement, pro affirmative action, pro pacifism in the face of an enemy, pro big govt., pro socialism, pro anti-achievement and pro-supporting under achievement posts, I will call them out for an argument.

As far as credibility goes, I do not seek credibility from the internet or a gaming forum or from you.  I seek credibility from my children, my wife, the rest of my family, my friends and my co-workers. Pretty much in that order. In fact, I can say with absolute certainly that seeking your stamp of approval for anything in my life is not even on the radar screen. I have my opinions, I share them, while others share theirs, and for entertainment value only, we defend those opinions in here.

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

No, anyone with an IQ higher than that of a rock uses "excuses" like what you listed. Because they're not excuses. 99% of the time concerning your posts, they're absolutely true.

Ken was right about you. You make up arguments all the time just for the sake of arguing. You accuse people of having viewpoints they don't all the time, you accuse people of being a liberal when they disagree with you, and you'll throw out the same rhetoric you always do, regardless of whether it actually even applies to the topic at hand. It seems that GS was also right. I believe he said something like "once someone's credibility is gone, they can never get it back". Sums you up nicely.

I have never argued against someone elses viewpoint by using those bullshit catch all excuses that you use, and yes you are one of those that uses them. I will stand toe to toe arguing my opinion, without not dismissing yours, or casting insults (much ). Give it a try.

When I read pro appeasement, pro affirmative action, pro pacifism in the face of an enemy, pro big govt., pro socialism, pro anti-achievement and pro-supporting under achievement posts, I will call them out for an argument.

As far as credibility goes, I do not seek credibility from the internet or a gaming forum or from you.  I seek credibility from my children, my wife, the rest of my family, my friends and my co-workers. Pretty much in that order. In fact, I can say with absolute certainly that seeking your stamp of approval for anything in my life is not even on the radar screen. I have my opinions, I share them, while others share theirs, and for entertainment value only, we defend those opinions in here.

That's beautiful.

But you're on an internet forum for a 4 year old game that you've never even played.

And the bottom line is that using WND as a source for anything is like me using Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow as sources on abortion. I wouldn't expect anyone to take them seriously either. Yet somehow you think using any source is just fine and dandy. Newsflash: it's not. I mean sure, go ahead and do it...just don't get all flustered like you usually do when people write it off.

Actually I do play the game.

Using a source that SUPPORTS your opinion and your argument is what it is all about. Discredit the facts of the article if you can. to try and discredit the source over the facts is desporate to say the least.

Lastly, I think I am one of the least flustered people on this forum. People like you don't normally get to me. That is of course not to say it has never happened, but I am pretty sure my attacked to attack ratio is pretty wide.

So again, I challenge you to put away your bullshit excuses for arguments, and try and focus on the information presented, disprove it or argue against it if you can, but I for one grow weary of reading dismissals and excuses for NOT arguing, over a good counter point. give it a shot, lets see how ya do.

We will try baby steps. I will say Hitler is a great guy, now you try and argue that he isn't WITHOUT using the word racist, generalizing, biased, etc. in your response. If you do well, we will ratchet it up a notch. Remember, practice does make perfect.

Last edited by lowing (2009-06-16 06:11:44)

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

No, anyone with an IQ higher than that of a rock uses "excuses" like what you listed. Because they're not excuses. 99% of the time concerning your posts, they're absolutely true.

Ken was right about you. You make up arguments all the time just for the sake of arguing. You accuse people of having viewpoints they don't all the time, you accuse people of being a liberal when they disagree with you, and you'll throw out the same rhetoric you always do, regardless of whether it actually even applies to the topic at hand. It seems that GS was also right. I believe he said something like "once someone's credibility is gone, they can never get it back". Sums you up nicely.

I have never argued against someone elses viewpoint by using those bullshit catch all excuses that you use, and yes you are one of those that uses them. I will stand toe to toe arguing my opinion, without not dismissing yours, or casting insults (much ). Give it a try.

When I read pro appeasement, pro affirmative action, pro pacifism in the face of an enemy, pro big govt., pro socialism, pro anti-achievement and pro-supporting under achievement posts, I will call them out for an argument.

As far as credibility goes, I do not seek credibility from the internet or a gaming forum or from you.  I seek credibility from my children, my wife, the rest of my family, my friends and my co-workers. Pretty much in that order. In fact, I can say with absolute certainly that seeking your stamp of approval for anything in my life is not even on the radar screen. I have my opinions, I share them, while others share theirs, and for entertainment value only, we defend those opinions in here.

That's beautiful.

I thought so.