Camp David anyone?

[matus1976]

I'm starting to think it may serve as a litmus test for idiots.

Then we will be forced to conclude that your ultimate goal is not an accurate description of an objective reality but instead the perpetuation of your own idealogy at the expense of and in the face of reality.

A minor nitpick error which has no real effect on the central points of the argument is evidence of a wholesale attempt to distort reality?

No, Darth wong, I am surprised you twist my statements so much. It is not that it is a minor nitpick (which I dont consider minor) it is that you admit it is in factual error, but suggest that you will leave it in your essay *anyway* even though you know it to be untrue. This means that you value the promulgation of your own idealogy more than the quest for the truth.

As I said

If you so callously include something you know to be factually in error in your essay than your entire intellectual credibility is suspect, despite my disagreements with your position, at least you have remained intellectually honest.

It is minor. The fact that you are making a mountain out of a molehill is not giving me particular impetus to put out a fix

The molehill you claim I am making a mountain out of is not the claim (nitpick or not) it is the fact that you would choose to leave it in the essay even though you know it to be factually in error. Again, this means you care not for the truth, only to convince easily manipulated automatons like vampyl of your own idealogy. If it is your moral principle to base your opinions and your worldview on reality, than do so. But a principle is a principle, it is not something you pick and choose to apply. If you abondan reality and leave something in you know to be factual in error, you violate the principle of basing your worldview on an objective reality. Violating a principle even once is still a violation of said principle.

particularly when it has no real bearing on the overall conclusions or arguments of the page.

It is not the scope of the claim or its bearing in the overall conclusions, it is the fact that you choose to ignore reality and lie to promote your idealogy.

And the fact that you are attempting to claim that my "entire intellectual credibility is suspect" based on this nitpick is a perfect example of the red-herring nitpick fallacy which you claim to be innocent of.

A red herring is an irrelevant piece of information thrown into an argument to throw the argument of course. Your claim that camp david was named so to insult arabs is a part of your overall argument and is definately related to your argument, and thus can not be considered a red herring.

It turns out that I was completely correct. This nitpick turned out to be an excellent litmus test, having caught one idiot red-handed already.

Or a not so clever way to cover your tracks for not appropriately researching your claims. One may wonder what other claims of yours that you "should have researched the background of"

Intentionally including a factual error in an argument reverts you to a mystic of the mind

So now you think I "intentionally included" it in the first place?

No, absolutely not, I have never implied you intentionally included it in the first place, as this whole entire post is based on the assumption that you leave the line in the essay (indefinately) even though you now know it to be false. Which is why I said this in response to your 'I think ill leave it anyway' (paraphrasing)

Starting with nitpicks, moving on to ad-hominem attacks.

No, it was not an ad hominem attack, as I explained above.

you are no better than a fortune teller or a psychic surgeon preying on the ignorance of others to promulgate your propoganda and your subjective reality.

Ah, so my failure to remove an insignificant error means that everything I say is crap, eh? As I said before, thanks for demonstrating that I was 100% correct about your methods.

No, again I am surprised that you would twist my statement. It is not your failure to remove the error, it is the fact that you suggested you would leave it in. Which, again, is why I posted this in response to your suggestion that you would leave the statement in (indefinately) even though you know it to be false. Intentionally leaeving a false statement in your essay *definately* makes your entire arguments suspect, because it acknowledges that your goal is not truth telling but is instead idealogical promulgation.

Do you have any more shopworn rhetorical tricks to pull out of your ass? I am now "molding reality" because I don't bother to update my page, even though I have already publicly acknowledged that it's an error?

No Mike, it has nothing to do with 'not bothering to update your page', it has everything to do with knowing something is false but intentionally continuing to present it as true. This was in response to your suggestion that you would leave the line in, not that you wouldnt get a chance to update your page anytime soon.

I'd say that's a big Concession Accepted. He has been claiming for many pages now that he would not use a minor nitpick as an excuse to dismiss everything that someone says. But he has just done precisely that: claiming that my ENTIRE METHOD has been reduced to pseudoscience and mysticism by this insignificant nitpick.

No, I think you read through these posts to quick, but perhaps I was not clear. This post in its entirety was ONLY in response to the suggestion that you would leave that line in indefinately and intentionally even though you know it to be false. If you intentionally leave false statements in your essay, it DOES bring your entire essay into question. If you accidently do, it does not, if you do because you havent had a chance to remove, it also does not. If you leave it intentionally and permanently, it certainly does.

Matus

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

1) I don't think his motive for leaving it in is his ideology. The argument is sound without it, so he doesn't need to. If you feel that the reason that he leaves it in is that he's an ideologue, without good evidence, then you've just insulted the man. His motive for leaving it in has been stated. You might like it or not (I don't, and had said so before this post) but it would not seem it is an ideological reason.

2) Historically, to the best of my knowledge, he is generally willing to change other pages. In fact, on many of his SW pages are sections of Acknowledgment, where big or small, corrections are credited. Thus further casting doubt on the ideologue theory.

3) As to the size of the error, it definitely is not major, since its loss DOES NOT cause his argument to come down. But when you add in the ease with which the correct information could be had, it is probably a moderate sized error. Are you blowing up the size? Somewhat. We're all sure it is a mistake. We all know that it alone doesn't blow up his argument. Let's leave it at that.

4) The red-herring Wong mentions, I believe, is you seeming to link that singular error to his credibility. You will notice that the error itself, at the beginning is NOT considered a red herring, was it? He thinks it is a nit, but not yet a red-herring.

It is not logical (just try asking yourself exactly WHY seeing one error degrades your evaluation of the entire page's credibility.) But it is heuristical, a mental shortcut. Heuristics are part of human life, but "red-herrings" are logical and not heuristical fallacies.

5) I'm sure that he tries to base his views on reality. And I don't really think that he's deliberately leaving his policy now.

6) What I think he's doing is that since he knows that it is an error, but one that anybody that really needs every fact to be accurate can resolve real quick, he leaves it in, as a trap.

I would guess he wants people to read it, note the error, and read on. That's passing.

Failure is using his standardized Trekkie "back-handed compliment" template and modifying it for the situation. Mix it in with the "ad hominem" template for an even poorer score.

7) Now that I'm done defending him, I'll say that I agree with YOUR solution to the problem. His reasons notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that humans ARE partially illogical, heuristic and emotional. It cannot possibly make a good impression on someone to see that error (if he detects it.) Any fun he gets from getting people like you to scream at the error ... well, not worth it IMO.

He might also consider that no matter what the cause, his decision to leave it in does create a small (the size is on the beholder) and DELIBERATE violation of truth, and really a small betrayal to the reader, because most of them will read articles with the assumption/trust that the information in there is accurate (or at least as good as the author makes them.) If I tricked you into walking into a trap so I can get some giggles, technically, I have BETRAYED your trust, no matter how harmless the trap might be.

Even if he posted: 1 + 1 = 3 on that page. Well, 1 + 1 = 3 has nothing to do with Israel, but he really should change it, even though any idiot should know that part of the page's wrong.

Still, it is his page.

[matus1976]

He might also consider that no matter what the cause, his decision to leave it in does create a small (the size is on the beholder) and DELIBERATE violation of truth, and really a small betrayal to the reader, because most of them will read articles with the assumption/trust that the information in there is accurate (or at least as good as the author makes them.) If I tricked you into walking into a trap so I can get some giggles, technically, I have BETRAYED your trust, no matter how harmless the trap might be. .

Thats all that need be quoting, and that is all I am noting. If he leaves it in (indefinately mind you, not just until he gets a chance to remove it, we are all busy people), it is a deliberate and intentional misrepresentation. It is a betrayel of the truth, it suggests that he values promulgating his idealogy more than seeking the truth. If you cant make your argument stand without resorting to lies, then what does that say about the validity of ones position? And all of you people are making this as much of a big deal as I am by continuing to post about it. One of my previous posts to Wong was 'Mr. Wong, if you recognize this as a factual error, will it be removed' I see no overblowing of making a mountain out of a moll hill in this statement. Its a short, simple, concise question that can be answered with a yes or no, and that was all I was wondering.

It was at his suggestion that he will leave it in anyway that I drew attention, and attention it deserves, because of what it demonstrates. There is an army of easily manipulated automatons on this board (such as Vampyl) and intentionally spreading information that is not based on reality to them puts him to the category of a charlatan, of a liar, and a cheat. Once somebody intentionally violates the recognition and spreading of the truth, then they can no longer say that as a principle they speak only the truth.

Still, it is his page.

Of course it is, and he can do what he wants with it. If what he wants is to intentionally lie, then I will raise objections to it. They can be heard or ignored, I have no say in what he does, I can only attempt to get him to recognize the value of the truth over non-truth.

I came to site years ago with a great respect for Mr. Wong, I study logic, science, reason, politics, ethics, physics, etc. etc. and seem to share many of the same interests as him. I have spent many years debating psuedoscientists and creationists. Reading his debates with rabid trekkies and his comments in the star trek TNG database, made me respect his intellect, logic, knowledge and debating skills. I 'debated' him many a year back through email on the ability to 'innoculate against viruses' and quickly backed down when he demonstrated the validity of his position and after reading through the rest of his site.

That being said, if a man I respect for his science, logic, and reason intentionally lies in an essay that purports to be an essay that is based on logic and reason, then I have lost that aspect of my respect for him. Not that he need care or should mind you.

Matus

[Crown]

Wow, four pages of utter tripe. That was well, a waste of my time. And yes I know that if I don't like it I shouldn't post rule, but hey.

[Admiral Piett]

Mr Matus,if you are so sure that the whole mr Wong essay is flawed,what about using the time to repeat countless times "that its credibility is put in doubt" to do a little research about the whole argument to verify if Wong's view is really so flawed as you imply it could be?
It is certainly a much more productive approach than arguing endlessy that "his credibility is in doubt".Of course there is the risk that you migh end discovering that you are wrong (although when it comes down to politics it is often a somewhat grey area) ,as it has happened to me in others occasions.But since you are so sure...

[matus1976]

Mr Matus,if you are so sure that the whole mr Wong essay is flawed,what about using the time to repeat countless times "that its credibility is put in doubt" to do a little research about the whole argument to verify if Wong's view is really so flawed as you imply it could be? It is certainly a much more productive approach than arguing endlessy that "his credibility is in doubt".Of course there is the risk that you migh end discovering that you are wrong (although when it comes down to politics it is often a somewhat grey area) ,as it has happened to me in others occasions.But since you are so sure...

Man, do you people actually read these posts? When did I say I was 'so sure' that the whole wong essay was 'flawed'? Stop making up what you think I said. I said that if he made such an error, it was a careless one, which does indeed make me suspect of the rest of this essay, if such a simple and easily researched point is wrong. The fact that he suggests he will leave it in even though he knows it to be factually in error, demonstrates, as I have now said FOUR TIMES at least that this means he values promulgating his own idealogy over seeking and telling the truth, such a move would definately put his 'credibility in doubt' Try reading what I actually say from now own. For now I will stop responding in this thread as I dont believe I can be any clearer, and I will post on in the debate thread with Vympel.

Matus

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Looking at your reply to Piett, I realized you really hadn't read the MOST IMPORTANT thing in my little diatribe.

I TOLD you that from his previous record, it is highly unlikely Wong's primary MOTIVATION for his decision is idealogy, and that your attempt to automatically link such with his decision is wrong. You never even bothered to try to rebutt this. You just repeat your position, which IMO is unjustified, especially since YOU seemed to think he's pretty good until now.

At worst, this is probably a bad joke, that's all. When he gets bored with that trap, he's probably going to change it. In fact, have you considered the possibility that if you didn't make this joke so much fun for Wong, maybe he'll have removed it by now?

The only problem I have with his decision is that he's betraying all the new readers, since they DON'T know why he is leaving it in. If they just buy it as fact, it might alter their perception ever so slightly.

[Oddity]

Nixon starts an entire thread because Darth Wong said that Camp David was named after a Biblical character rather than Eisenhower's grandson, and the result is four fucking pages??

How can anyone, unless you have a lower IQ score than a box of spinach, belive that this would have any impact whatsoever on Wong's essay?

Is it allways like this in the Science & Morality section?

[Nixon]

Damn, I didn't know I'd spark this much debate and anger the Darth Wong wannabes so much. All I can say is let the facts speak for themselves. I point out a factual error in Darth Wong's essay, and instead of removing it he decides to spite others and consciously leave a lie in his essay. His essay is littered with unproven conspiracy theories and other half-truths. I decided to bring this point up on a seperate thread because it seemed like you Darth Wong wannabes didn't want to read everything I had said. (If you don't like that I brought up it up in a seperate thread, then good for you, I don't care, ask the moderator to remove it then). Note, I brought up many lies in Darth Wong's essay, not just that one.

Darth Wong says he has nothing against the Jews, despite the fact he says Israel (Which is mostly comprised of Jews) was always a bloodthirsty facist state since Biblical times. (Nevermind Israel has barely been in existence in the entirety of human history) He accuses others of ad hominem attacks yet calls people idiot and asshole. He presents his points ad nauseam, while trying to guess ulterior motives to every single action Israel has taken in its history without presenting to us any proof or sufficient justification. Even in the face of reason, he still wishes to not take on the burden of proof one must take when said individual presents such accusations.

In a forum titled Science, Logic, and Morality, the vicious ad hominem attacks on me and others who dare to question Darth Wong's diatribe, is especially disconcerting. I'm not going to argue points with people that take the playground mentality of you're a poo poo head, or accuse me of poor reading skills since you people barely read what I or others have to say.

At this point it doesn't seem worth it to me since you don't want to look at this objectively. If you've convinced yourselves you're right, what's the point in arguing with each other in endless circles?

[HemlockGrey]

Damn, I didn't know I'd spark this much debate and anger the Darth Wong wannabes so much. All I can say is let the facts speak for themselves. I point out a factual error in Darth Wong's essay, and instead of removing it he decides to spite others and consciously leave a lie in his essay. His essay is littered with unproven conspiracy theories and other half-truths. I decided to bring this point up on a seperate thread because it seemed like you Darth Wong wannabes didn't want to read everything I had said. (If you don't like that I brought up it up in a seperate thread, then good for you, I don't care, ask the moderator to remove it then). Note, I brought up many lies in Darth Wong's essay, not just that one.

"And I looked, and beheld a great fuckwit, and the masses writhed and there was much trolling and gnashing of bans"

You, sir, are a fucking idiot.

What 'conspiracy theroies?" What "half-truths"? You have one pointed out one fucking problem that has exactly shit to do with the main point of the article!

Darth Wong says he has nothing against the Jews, despite the fact he says Israel (Which is mostly comprised of Jews) was always a bloodthirsty facist state since Biblical times. (Nevermind Israel has barely been in existence in the entirety of human history) He accuses others of ad hominem attacks yet calls people idiot and asshole.

Awww! Did Wong call wittle baby a bad name? You fucking cunt. An ad hominem is only a fallacy when it is the entirety of the argument.

I don't like Israel. One of my best friends is Jewish. Your implication that all anti-Israelis are anti-Semites is a typical kneejerk last-ditch effort to smear your opponent.

He presents his points ad nauseam, while trying to guess ulterior motives to every single action Israel has taken in its history without presenting to us any proof or sufficient justification. Even in the face of reason, he still wishes to not take on the burden of proof one must take when said individual presents such accusations.

Gee golly! I guess the word of the fucking Israel top brass isn't proof enough for you! I guess cold facts and history are enough fucking proof for you!

I know! Stick your head up your ass, and keep living in that little bubble world where you are king!

In a forum titled Science, Logic, and Morality, the vicious ad hominem attacks on me and others who dare to question Darth Wong's diatribe, is especially disconcerting. I'm not going to argue points with people that take the playground mentality of you're a poo poo head, or accuse me of poor reading skills since you people barely read what I or others have to say.

I've questioned Mike Wong. I've lived to tell about it. Only, you won't, because you're a fucking dumbass.

At this point it doesn't seem worth it to me since you don't want to look at this objectively. If you've convinced yourselves you're right, what's the point in arguing with each other in endless circles?

No refutations.
No arguments.
No reasons.

Therefor,

[Colonel Olrik]

bump!

And voila, I found it! * Pats himself on the shoulder*

[Vympel]

A good thing too- considering Hemlock just smacked one of our local slogan throwing Israel apologists down

[Nixon]

"And I looked, and beheld a great fuckwit, and the masses writhed and there was much trolling and gnashing of bans"

You, sir, are a fucking idiot.

What 'conspiracy theroies?" What "half-truths"? You have one pointed out one fucking problem that has exactly shit to do with the main point of the article!

Why are you so angry to feel the need to call me a fucking idiot? And why don't you READ my initial post on the subject to see the 'conspiracy theories' and 'half-truths'. I pointed out several problems, stop trying to act like this is some kind of school yard fight.

Awww! Did Wong call wittle baby a bad name? You fucking cunt.

Wow, that is especially hateful.

An ad hominem is only a fallacy when it is the entirety of the argument.

Not always the case. Ad hominem attacks can take on various forms, such as attacking your opponent with an insult.

I don't like Israel. One of my best friends is Jewish. Your implication that all anti-Israelis are anti-Semites is a typical kneejerk last-ditch effort to smear your opponent.

When did I say that? I said, Darth Wong stated, and I'm paraphrasing, that Israel as a state has always been a bloodhthirsty facist country. To me you can't make that kind of generalization without justifying, that every single point in Israeli history, it was always bloodthirsty facist state. Let's also point out, that Israel is a democracy, (Democracy from the Greek words majority rule) and freely elects its leaders, who represent the interests and wishes of their constituency, which to it's logical conclusion, he is saying the majority of Jews in Israel are and have always been bloodthirsty facists.

Quote:
He presents his points ad nauseam, while trying to guess ulterior motives to every single action Israel has taken in its history without presenting to us any proof or sufficient justification. Even in the face of reason, he still wishes to not take on the burden of proof one must take when said individual presents such accusations.


Gee golly! I guess the word of the fucking Israel top brass isn't proof enough for you! I guess cold facts and history are enough fucking proof for you!

Darth Wong presents facts. Sometimes, and then presents a distorted subjective interpretation of them. What part are you not comprehending?

I know! Stick your head up your ass, and keep living in that little bubble world where you are king!

Grow up.

Quote:
In a forum titled Science, Logic, and Morality, the vicious ad hominem attacks on me and others who dare to question Darth Wong's diatribe, is especially disconcerting. I'm not going to argue points with people that take the playground mentality of you're a poo poo head, or accuse me of poor reading skills since you people barely read what I or others have to say.


I've questioned Mike Wong. I've lived to tell about it. Only, you won't, because you're a fucking dumbass.

So I guess I have to instantaneously respond to all responses attacking my post? Can I get a litte time here? I realize you may have more free time than me, but I have a life outside of this forum.

Quote:
At this point it doesn't seem worth it to me since you don't want to look at this objectively. If you've convinced yourselves you're right, what's the point in arguing with each other in endless circles?


No refutations.
No arguments.
No reasons.

I did all three. Darth Wong's initial attack was to call me an idiot. And I responded. And as far as subsequent posts, I don't have the time to instantaneously respond to dozens of participants siding with Darth Wong.

[HemlockGrey]

Why are you so angry to feel the need to call me a fucking idiot? And why don't you READ my initial post on the subject to see the 'conspiracy theories' and 'half-truths'. I pointed out several problems, stop trying to act like this is some kind of school yard fight.

Evidence.

Wow, that is especially hateful.

I'm a hateful person. Bite me.

Not always the case. Ad hominem attacks can take on various forms, such as attacking your opponent with an insult.

But it's only a fallacy when it is the only argument used, moron.

When did I say that? I said, Darth Wong stated, and I'm paraphrasing, that Israel as a state has always been a bloodhthirsty facist country. To me you can't make that kind of generalization without justifying, that every single point in Israeli history, it was always bloodthirsty facist state. Let's also point out, that Israel is a democracy, (Democracy from the Greek words majority rule) and freely elects its leaders, who represent the interests and wishes of their constituency, which to it's logical conclusion, he is saying the majority of Jews in Israel are and have always been bloodthirsty facists.

Oh, dear, I must have skipped over the part where he said that Jews are bloodthirsty facists. I only read the part where he said the Israeli government and IDF commanders were bloodthirsty facists, which, for at least their modern history, they have been.

Darth Wong presents facts. Sometimes, and then presents a distorted subjective interpretation of them. What part are you not comprehending?

The part when you said you had some sort of evidence to back this up.

Grow up.

Bite me.

So I guess I have to instantaneously respond to all responses attacking my post? Can I get a litte time here? I realize you may have more free time than me, but I have a life outside of this forum.

WTF does that have to do with what I said?

I did all three. Darth Wong's initial attack was to call me an idiot. And I responded. And as far as subsequent posts, I don't have the time to instantaneously respond to dozens of participants siding with Darth Wong

I'll kick the shit out of your argument in a short while. Please hold.

[Nixon]

Quote:
Why are you so angry to feel the need to call me a fucking idiot? And why don't you READ my initial post on the subject to see the 'conspiracy theories' and 'half-truths'. I pointed out several problems, stop trying to act like this is some kind of school yard fight.


Evidence.

Perhaps you can construct a full sentence there, what do you mean?

Quote:
Not always the case. Ad hominem attacks can take on various forms, such as attacking your opponent with an insult.


But it's only a fallacy when it is the only argument used, moron.

When did I say it is always a fallacy? Why are you making things up I never said? And I suppose your constant insults on my intelligence and your failure to address the criticisms I pointed out in my original post is not a fallacy? Deflecting the argument by resorting to childish, immature name calling is most certainly a fallacy, which you seem to be very good at.

Quote:
When did I say that? I said, Darth Wong stated, and I'm paraphrasing, that Israel as a state has always been a bloodhthirsty facist country. To me you can't make that kind of generalization without justifying, that every single point in Israeli history, it was always bloodthirsty facist state. Let's also point out, that Israel is a democracy, (Democracy from the Greek words majority rule) and freely elects its leaders, who represent the interests and wishes of their constituency, which to it's logical conclusion, he is saying the majority of Jews in Israel are and have always been bloodthirsty facists.


Oh, dear, I must have skipped over the part where he said that Jews are bloodthirsty facists. I only read the part where he said the Israeli government and IDF commanders were bloodthirsty facists, which, for at least their modern history, they have been.

What part don't you understand? Read what I said again, this time CAREFULLY. You said "I only read the part where he said the Israeli government and IDF commanders were bloodthirsty facists", now read what I said again and tell me what's wrong with that statement?

Quote:
Darth Wong presents facts. Sometimes, and then presents a distorted subjective interpretation of them. What part are you not comprehending?


The part when you said you had some sort of evidence to back this up.

As I stated several times, which people such as yourself have constantly ignored, Darth Wong was the one that made the accusations on the "True Nature Of Israel". The burden of proof is on him to provide empirical evidence to support the claims he makes.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... proof.html

Quote:
Grow up.


Bite me.

Real intelligent.

Quote:
So I guess I have to instantaneously respond to all responses attacking my post? Can I get a litte time here? I realize you may have more free time than me, but I have a life outside of this forum.


WTF does that have to do with what I said?

You claimed I provided no refutation or argument. I did, I just haven't provided refutations and arguments to more than 20 pages of posts. Do I need to spell everything out for you?

Quote:
I did all three. Darth Wong's initial attack was to call me an idiot. And I responded. And as far as subsequent posts, I don't have the time to instantaneously respond to dozens of participants siding with Darth Wong


I'll kick the shit out of your argument in a short while. Please hold.

Bring it on.

[HemlockGrey]

Perhaps you can construct a full sentence there, what do you mean?

Back it up. Links. Quotations. History. You were already patheticly wrong about the Six Days War, so your credibility is dropping.

When did I say it is always a fallacy? Why are you making things up I never said? And I suppose your constant insults on my intelligence and your failure to address the criticisms I pointed out in my original post is not a fallacy? Deflecting the argument by resorting to childish, immature name calling is most certainly a fallacy, which you seem to be very good at.

I just like insulting stupid people. Check the forum description.

What part don't you understand? Read what I said again, this time CAREFULLY. You said "I only read the part where he said the Israeli government and IDF commanders were bloodthirsty facists", now read what I said again and tell me what's wrong with that statement?

Not much, considering Israeli top brass are bloodthirsty facists. That in no way makes me anti-Jewish. I think Saddam Hussein is a bloodthirsty facist. Does that make me anti-Arab?

As I stated several times, which people such as yourself have constantly ignored, Darth Wong was the one that made the accusations on the "True Nature Of Israel". The burden of proof is on him to provide empirical evidence to support the claims he makes.

And he does. Direct quotes. Links. Historical facts. You are attacking his article- the burden of proof has now shifted to YOU. YOU must prove that he is incorrect.

Real intelligent.

More so than you could ever hope to be.

You claimed I provided no refutation or argument. I did, I just haven't provided refutations and arguments to more than 20 pages of posts. Do I need to spell everything out for you?

Yes. Address all points and stop bitching or concede.

Bring it on.

With pleasure.

[Nixon]

Perhaps you can construct a full sentence there, what do you mean?


Back it up. Links. Quotations. History. You were already patheticly wrong about the Six Days War, so your credibility is dropping.

I did back it up. And I was not pathetically wrong about the Six Day War. Believe what you want, but don't revise history.

Quote:
When did I say it is always a fallacy? Why are you making things up I never said? And I suppose your constant insults on my intelligence and your failure to address the criticisms I pointed out in my original post is not a fallacy? Deflecting the argument by resorting to childish, immature name calling is most certainly a fallacy, which you seem to be very good at.


I just like insulting stupid people. Check the forum description.

Science, Logic, and Morality. Which you seem to not comprehend any of the three.

Quote:
What part don't you understand? Read what I said again, this time CAREFULLY. You said "I only read the part where he said the Israeli government and IDF commanders were bloodthirsty facists", now read what I said again and tell me what's wrong with that statement?


Not much, considering Israeli top brass are bloodthirsty facists. That in no way makes me anti-Jewish. I think Saddam Hussein is a bloodthirsty facist. Does that make me anti-Arab?

Well no since Saddam Hussein was not freely elected, read what I said again. I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over again because you can't read.

Quote:
As I stated several times, which people such as yourself have constantly ignored, Darth Wong was the one that made the accusations on the "True Nature Of Israel". The burden of proof is on him to provide empirical evidence to support the claims he makes.


And he does. Direct quotes. Links. Historical facts. You are attacking his article- the burden of proof has now shifted to YOU. YOU must prove that he is incorrect.

He barely attacked my arguments which were mostly criticisms and fabricating things I never said. Perhaps you forgot the camp david thread? (And please, don't tell me that means I'm saying that false-hood alone Darth Wong said discounts everything he said in his essay. I never said that either.)

Quote:
Real intelligent.


More so than you could ever hope to be.

Oooh, I'm scared.

Quote:
You claimed I provided no refutation or argument. I did, I just haven't provided refutations and arguments to more than 20 pages of posts. Do I need to spell everything out for you?


Yes. Address all points and stop bitching or concede.

I'll address them if you learn how to read. Since that's required to refute my arguments.

[HemlockGrey]

I did back it up. And I was not pathetically wrong about the Six Day War. Believe what you want, but don't revise history.

You said the Arab states attacked first. Who is revising history? Oh, that's right- you.

Science, Logic, and Morality. Which you seem to not comprehend any of the three.

Sci-fi, Science, and Mockery of Stupid People.

Well no since Saddam Hussein was not freely elected, read what I said again. I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over again because you can't read.

Sharon is no better than Hussein.

He barely attacked my arguments which were mostly criticisms and fabricating things I never said. Perhaps you forgot the camp david thread? (And please, don't tell me that means I'm saying that false-hood alone Darth Wong said discounts everything he said in his essay. I never said that either.)

Your camp david nitpick was an utterly absurd attempt at smearing your opponent without making a point.

Oooh, I'm scared.

You'd be less scared if you had any balls.

[Nixon]

Quote:
He barely attacked my arguments which were mostly criticisms and fabricating things I never said. Perhaps you forgot the camp david thread? (And please, don't tell me that means I'm saying that false-hood alone Darth Wong said discounts everything he said in his essay. I never said that either.)


Your camp david nitpick was an utterly absurd attempt at smearing your opponent without making a point.

The point being he lied. And the theme of his essay was the True Nature of Israel. Which he admits himself was careless on his part for not researching closely enough. Read the post by Matt Jerjerrod on page 3 and matus1976's subsequent posts. I'm not going to keep repeating myself and play this childish game with you. It was not a smear but a statement of fact. Darth Wong lied. And you can't argue with that since he admited to it.

[Nixon]

Quote:
Well no since Saddam Hussein was not freely elected, read what I said again. I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over again because you can't read.


Sharon is no better than Hussein.

I guess you admit you can't read.

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Fuck off Nixon, you nitpicking knee-jerk Israel apologist strawman who smells like shit.

Now that I've gotten all of the typically useless responses out of the way for Vympel et al, perhaps they could debate you constructively.

[Vympel]

It was not a smear but a statement of fact. Darth Wong lied. And you can't argue with that since he admited to it.

Really? From error to intentional lie now? What a slippery little turd you are.

7 pages dedicated to deconstructing your bullshit has already been done. You posted IIRC twice and didn't come back, only to attempt to post a new thread trumpeting a nitpick. You're pathetic.

[Slartibartfast]

and the other half were nitpicks that didn't add anything to the discussion.

One mans nitpick is another mans disagreement and valid objection.

Matus

You must be that man, then... bet you always find treasures in other peoples' garbage.

[Slartibartfast]

"And I looked, and beheld a great fuckwit, and the masses writhed and there was much trolling and gnashing of bans"

You, sir, are a fucking idiot.

What 'conspiracy theroies?" What "half-truths"? You have one pointed out one fucking problem that has exactly shit to do with the main point of the article!

Why are you so angry to feel the need to call me a fucking idiot? And why don't you READ my initial post on the subject to see the 'conspiracy theories' and 'half-truths'. I pointed out several problems, stop trying to act like this is some kind of school yard fight.

Ok, I just wanted to point out that I'm in a specially good mood right now. Today has been a really great day, and I have had a lot of fun tonight. So, nothing can even hint that I'm angry, not at all, in fact I'm the friggin' Avatar of Happiness.

You, Mr. Nixon, are a complete, fucking, retarded idiot.

See? One doesn't have to be angry to call you a fucking idiot. I'm calling you a fucking idiot and smiling at the same time.

As everyone else has pointed out already, you are a fucking idiot.

Oops, I mean, as everyone has pointed out already, your entire "argument" and "attacks against Wongs' credibility" are nothing but nitpicks about a completely secondary point, written in PARENTHESES (which means that they can be safely removed without altering at all the original paragraph) and being disproven or not make absofuckinglutely no difference.

Awww! Did Wong call wittle baby a bad name? You fucking cunt.

Wow, that is especially hateful.

An ad hominem is only a fallacy when it is the entirety of the argument.

Not always the case. Ad hominem attacks can take on various forms, such as attacking your opponent with an insult.

Wrong: Ad Hominem only exists when you attack the opponent but FAIL to attack your opponent's argument. So if I say that you are a fucking idiot, but also explain why you are wrong, I'm not committing Ad Hominem: I'm merely insulting you at the same time, deservedly or not, it doesn't matter.

I know! Stick your head up your ass, and keep living in that little bubble world where you are king!

Grow up.

Grow a beard. Or a personality.

I've questioned Mike Wong. I've lived to tell about it. Only, you won't, because you're a fucking dumbass.

So I guess I have to instantaneously respond to all responses attacking my post? Can I get a litte time here? I realize you may have more free time than me, but I have a life outside of this forum.

If your life inside the forum is any indication of your life outside the forum, then we can feel nothing but pity and contempt against you.

At this point it doesn't seem worth it to me since you don't want to look at this objectively. If you've convinced yourselves you're right, what's the point in arguing with each other in endless circles?


No refutations.
No arguments.
No reasons.

I did all three. Darth Wong's initial attack was to call me an idiot. And I responded. And as far as subsequent posts, I don't have the time to instantaneously respond to dozens of participants siding with Darth Wong.

Call you an idiot and then explain to you why you're an idiot. You say it's Ad Hominem. I call it constructive criticism.

[Slartibartfast]

I just like insulting stupid people. Check the forum description.

Science, Logic, and Morality. Which you seem to not comprehend any of the three.

STARDESTROYER.NET
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people