: SDF: It's something Stu will find an excuse, somewHERE, somehow, to ignore. Look, NJ, Stu will need a stronger stimulus than a mere BBS post if he is to say anything new about the world. And we can't provide that.Indeed, SDF first pointed out to me, many moons ago, that I was wasting my time debating with Stu, disagreed, I thouught he rnked as at least a worthy debater- a 'silly clever conservative' as Orwell put it, however, lately, I realised it is futile, since his desperate love of imposing schemas and rampant sophistry aside, Stu is impregnable to reason:
"But that doesn't mark as superiority when millions of other life forms have
gone extinct? Go figure what's in the heads of leftist malcontents. Mush -
best I can tell."
The Man done say, rampant and unsubstantiated ad hominem, it also places him in a position of asserting that his ideas are the palce of thought and reason, and yet when faced with a logical demolition of his piss-poor (vieled ad hominem and surrepticiously schema imposing questions) HERE he responds with...
"After your wonderfully clinical examination of this issue I've been convinced
that you're absolutely right. Homosexuality is not repulsive to right thinking
people. Now, how will we convince the other 98% of males that disagree? "
A refusal not only to answer the question, but also to dogde out of it sarcastically (presumably he feals my reasoning beneath him), but also a subtle ad numerum argument as well.
He holds consistent hedonistic utilitarians to be inconsistent, not by their own arguments and reasoning, but by his schematic arguments, he refuses to enter into reasonable debate, and he is openly abusive. Now, lest he respond with his trademarked 'how dare ye judge my heart' routine, I have provided evidence, his own words, I have provided reason (I have debated with him reasonably, and rationally) I judge him by his works. I ahve no reason to beleive that his works are at varience with his heart, unless of course he wishes to reveal to us that he is a wind-up merchant, a mendacious and disrespectful charlatan who merely plays the conservative fiddle, I prefer to believe he is not so low, and actually beleives what he says..
Now, I want to be clear, this is no personal attack, no ad hominem upon him personally, rather, I am making a point about reason and rationality in debate in these chat rooms, Stuart does not live up to the high level of reason and consistancy as would be expected of adult debate. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in reason a tad.
I might stop bothering, Gee presents qualitatively better arguments.
