Ender Wiggin;689328 wrote:O-Trap
If thats what you got then no one can help you, I didnt say that, but as with everyone else here, youre going to believe what you want.
Um ... where did I say you said anything where I didn't address your exact words?
Ender Wiggin;689328 wrote:Ill humor you, you dont know anything other then what youre taught by your parents, do you know anyone whos parents teach them to judge a whole group based on a few from the group?
Unfortunately, yes. I live in a neighborhood where many of the children are taught to distrust anyone light skinned. Moreover, you said yourself that there are people who hate "all Muslims or anyone who could pass for one after 9/11." So not only do I personally know examples of people who make broad, sweeping generalizations about entire demographics, but you even mentioned an example. You presented the Exhibit A against yourself.
Ender Wiggin;689328 wrote:Are you really going to argue semantics?
No one DOES vs. no on SHOULD. How is that semantic? The two are very different statements.
Ender Wiggin;689328 wrote:*sigh* ok, no one SHOULD judge a group based on the actions a few, but the people who do are obviously in the minority and very stupid.
Believe it or not, there are people with genius IQs who do this.
Moreover, I find it funny that you just stereotyped a segment of the populace with an inaccurate sweeping description. How ironic.
A person can forever be in the wrong with how they view a portion of the whole of society, but that doesn't make them inherently stupid. It may make them ignorant.
Ender Wiggin;689328 wrote:You wouldnt go to Africa and expect there to be more German speaking people would you? Sure someone might think that, but thats not common nor would that person possess common sense.
I know you're trying to make an apples-to-apples parallel here, but it's so far off that it doesn't relate even remotely to anything you've said. It's like an apples-to-automobiles parallel.
Ender Wiggin;689328 wrote:I really cant believe youre arguing against that by the way, truly, utterly silly.
That I'm arguing against what, pray tell? That there are people in the country who stereotype and generalize ignorantly. Believe it, boy. As you grow up, you'll notice it, too.
Ender Wiggin;689328 wrote:Yes, completely baseless, you say I relish when I havent posted anything trolling, you missed my whole last post it seems. Many people agreed with things ive said, its not my fault some people dont like the frequency, but it doesnt lessen what happened or what was said at all.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it lessens what has happened, and I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the fact that you relish arguing with others does make you appear like a troll. You may not actually be one, but I'm telling you what you look like to others.
Ender Wiggin;689328 wrote:Funny how you mention troll when fab stated he only posts to get a rise.
Fab is trolling you. Happy?
Ender Wiggin;689328 wrote:Shows how you and everyone else is so obsessed with me.
Not that anyone hasn't been able to see the narcissism emanating from your posts, but if you think that people who enjoy getting a rise out of you (for the sole reason that it's incredibly easy to get you to go off on your self-glorifying, berating, illogical rants) do so because they're obsessed, it shows where your mind goes first. Rarely do I meet someone as egotistical as you're acting. It's not even upsetting. Almost like finding a four-leafed clover ... it's just rare.
Ender Wiggin;689328 wrote:Also, "laughably flawed"? Id ask you to point something, anything out but like everyone else here you wont. So ill move on.
I pointed out two consecutive sentences that contradict one another. I can cite the failed attempt at an analogy above. What about expecting me to make assumptions about you, but criticizing others for doing the same? None of those were logical in nature.
Ender Wiggin;689328 wrote:Your next point goes back to the common sense thing, you didnt use it because you brought up a point about qualifiers to something that should be glaringly obvious to most people.
How is it that I'm supposed to know that you're not a white supremacist? How am I supposed to know you are not a bigot? A chauvinist?
The truth is, I'm not able to assume any of those things about you, because I don't know you. For me to make a baseless assumption that you meant something other than what you said would have been a logically fallacious leap, so not only was it NOT common sense to read something into what you said, it was nothing BUT common sense to only take you as far as your statements.
The mere fact that you justify the notion that I should make baseless assumptions about you as long as they're benevolent is proof that you don't even actually know what logic is.
Ender Wiggin;689328 wrote:You have a problem comprehending, its like whats being said gets to your brain but then it changes into a different language and you have logical interruption in critical thinking.
Huh ... the journal that published my essay in 2007 seemed to think my logic was pretty sound. But hey, if Ender Wiggin, the man who can't help but ramble incoherently, thinks I'm lacking in critical thinking, I suppose he knows better.