Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
Lol. Still intent on avoiding my point to save face huh? I'll give you a full break down of why you're wrong when I get off work.
|
You have got to be joking. Every single time you come up with an argument, I completely invalidate it, and then you change stances. When you claimed that compromise doesn't work in the face of violence, I shut you down with examples throughout history of peaceful compromise being successful, including the civil rights movement and the British occupation of India. Then you said "Oh wait, I wasn't talking about compromise. I was talking about submission. My point was that we should fight and arrest terrorists, not make peace with them." I then proceeded to point out that small changes and peaceful compromises were able to destroy The Black Panther terrorist group, as well as severely limit the influence of the IRA, whereas reactionary violence and arrests did almost nothing to deter them. Then you said "Oh wait, I wasn't talking about submission and the impossibility of peaceful resolutions. I was talking about censorship. Censorship sucks!" I then pointed out that the only people who could even remotely be construed as in opposition to this sentiment (and it would have required a large logical leap) were Chula and Trollheart, who have long since left the argument at this point (save for the occasional post). If you have a problem with their point of view, take it up with them, not with me. And beyond that, if you ever bothered to read my posts, such as this example...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriphiel
But try to remember that the freedom of expression is one that you're enjoying right now, as you argue with me. Without it, we wouldn't even have the ability to be discussing this topic right now. Losing that freedom, even in small pieces over a long period of time, is a horrible tragedy.
|
... you would see that I am largely in favor of freedom of speech, and have never once supported censorship in any way. In fact, I was one of the people who praised the actions of the journalists. So you see, you have absolutely no reason to continue this discussion. You have continually embarrassed yourself, and every single one of your points have been invalidated. The very thing that you are currently arguing about (censorship) is a topic that we actually agree upon. There is literally no reason for you to continue, except for you to try to lash out at me for having defeated you in every possible way.
This argument is over. And yet, I can pretty much guarantee that you're going to respond to this with "But you don't understand my point. I wasn't arguing about censorship! I was arguing about *insert random issue here*". Feel free to continue, because just like when I used historical examples to invalidate your every word, I have a historical example that sheds light on what the outcome of the situation will be. Just like in the last two rounds of this pathetic excuse for an argument, you will find yourself defeated and humiliated.
This "bearded thug" just used you as his logical punching bag. Have a nice day at work.