Firstly, I don't have a "side", VBB, so don't expect a cookie from me because we happen to agree on an issue. I argue what I think is right, if you happen to agree --so much the better for it. But if you decide to attack my argument, then I will respond precisely what I think about your rebuttal. As to the substance of your accusation, yes, I could probably be more pithy, but I'm not getting paid to do this so I'm not going to spend extra time making it short. Thus you'll have to skim the 29 sentences I wrote or you could choose not to read it --as Para loves to remind us, it's a free country.VikingBoyBilly wrote:I'm on YOUR side, dopefish. [...] while I don't want to pick sides in this, they are against his anti-syrrian immigration leanings and thus in support of you, and you have just repaid me with disrespect.
Secondly, you made a snide comment and I followed in kind. If you don't want snippy comments in return, then don't make them in the first place.
Thirdly, it's outstandingly hypocritical for you to get annoyed at me for attacking your post even though it agreed with my stance, given your post literally did the exact same thing.
Another bare assertion substantiated by nothing. Also, I don't care if I keep your interest VBB --I wasn't even talking to you in the first place. As it turns out, learning why two people meaningfully disagree isn't something that you can accomplish in 2 sentences.VikingBoyBilly wrote:It's pretty obvious you don't actually read a lot of books if you don't understand that infodumping off-the-bat is easiest way to lose a reader's interest.
Firstly, that's a genetic fallacy, not an ad hominem fallacy. Also, that's not what I said. If you hadn't gotten bored with my "textwall", you might have noted that I explicitly told Para I wasn't accusing his views of being racist to "win" a debate. His views are racist as a simple statement of fact.VikingBoyBilly wrote: Socrates would not have countered Paramultart's arguments by telling him his views stem from racism (ad hominem) and laying down long-winded arguments that just makes him want to fight back more. He would tell stories, or inquire paramultart to describe where his stance is coming from to deliver character-building exposition.
Secondly, I'm not interested in trying to change the mind of a Rightist ideologue (A futile and pointless effort for all involved). I'm voicing my opinion so there's at least something countering the extreme views that he espouses loudly and often.
Yes, yes, this is like the tenth time you've said/implied this in your post. Message received: You think I'm dreadfully boring. I'll just have to find someway to live with myself.VikingBoyBilly wrote: You know, stuff that's interesting. It's not how long you make your sentences, but how you make it long. I disagree with some (a lot) of Paramultart's views, but he's my best friend and I respect him. My arguments were a lot smaller than yours because I chose to highlight what I feel is the most important, I advise you to argue like a real scholar who thirsts for new information his opponent can give him, not a history book that only pushes what it assumes is objective facts (but mostly biased opinions by the author) and is incapable of receiving input.
As for your claim about what you think a "real scholar" is, this looks like a caricature of an academic that you've made out of thin air, so you'll have to forgive me for summarily ignoring this torpid attempt to school me on what a real scholar is and how a real scholar thinks.