tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post5109862267633821054..comments2024-03-04T04:09:01.839-06:00Comments on And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: How I Became a Slimy PolecatDoctor Biobrainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01641661532899934766noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post-15535923423515560462008-04-26T02:52:00.000-05:002008-04-26T02:52:00.000-05:00You're wrong, Repsac. He's "like" a masochistic p...You're wrong, Repsac. He's "like" a masochistic polecat who enjoys to be laughed at. You need to describe his behavior; not insult him. By making it a simile, you turn it into a clever debate point, rather than a classless ad hominem.<BR/><BR/>One of my favorite parts of this debate is mimicking his absurd logic. It really is good practice for the day that I ever find an intelligent conservative to debate.Doctor Biobrainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01641661532899934766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post-29822083558521175832008-04-24T15:40:00.000-05:002008-04-24T15:40:00.000-05:00Donnie's just a masochistic polecat who enjoys bei...Donnie's just a masochistic polecat who enjoys being laughed at. There is no other explanation.repsac3https://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post-75497953592356367402008-04-22T16:39:00.000-05:002008-04-22T16:39:00.000-05:00John - I think your problem in that debate is that...John - I think your problem in that debate is that the guy is an authoritarian and he therefore considered you to be one of my evil minions. To him, you weren't raising any real debate points; but were just snipping at his heels as a way to help me out. In my first debate with him, he'd use the approval of his readers as proof that I was wrong about everything. I mean seriously, he kept insisting that his readers had determined him to be the winner and that I just had to deal with the loss. And so he had to ignore you for the same reason; because he imagines that your opinion can decide the debate in my favor. As I said before, reality isn't as important to him as the appearance of reality. And so for him to admit that I had two readers who independently disagreed with him would be tantamount to admitting defeat. So he had to put you guys on my team and therefore, anything you said was the same as me saying it.<BR/><BR/>But that's the way it is with everything this guy does. He doesn't even know what a real debate is, and thinks it's all just tricks and games; and so he imagined that you were just a dirty trickster distracting from the real debate. <BR/><BR/>But I don't think I'll ever drop out of the debate as I really do enjoy this kind of thing. Sure, it's frustrating, but I find it to be a decent mental exercise, though I'm barely giving any effort to this at all. And I really do think it's funny to keep forcing him to dig deeper into his own corner. And that's what's weird, this is all just a desperate attempt by him to force me into a corner, yet all I've been trying to do is get him out of his corner and into reality; yet he refuses. He just can't admit that he's said anything wrong and has to keep digging deeper into lunacy to avoid conceding to reality.Doctor Biobrainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01641661532899934766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post-12662679678374002322008-04-22T16:25:00.000-05:002008-04-22T16:25:00.000-05:00Fade - Yeah, I think it's intentional self-decepti...Fade - Yeah, I think it's intentional self-deception. They know they're wrong, and their last desperate hope is to veer off into the absurd and hope you go down the rabbithole with them. And by their logic, if you don't follow them down, then you lose by default. And if they can finally get you to trip up and say one wrong thing, you lose the entire debate; even if the new discussion bares no relation to the original point. They resort to these games because they have no other hope to win a debate.Doctor Biobrainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01641661532899934766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post-54837885791539903562008-04-22T15:11:00.000-05:002008-04-22T15:11:00.000-05:00Michael - Yeah, that's about how he thinks it work...Michael - Yeah, that's about how he thinks it works. For him, this isn't about giving good arguments. It's about having any kind of response at all. If you respond and act like you've won, then you're still in the game and might presuade your opponent that it's true. If you fail to respond, you lose. And that's what's so funny about him calling me a "post-modernist." For him, being "right" isn't about actually being right, but just about convincing everyone else that you're right. And if you play enough little wordgames and technicalities, you can win, even if you were wrong. And as I've seen from him in other debates, he can keep playing these games forever and keep insulting people while insisting that he's not until his opponents eventually stop responding and he declares victory. It's really quite sad.<BR/><BR/>And to tell you the truth, there isn't one of his comments that I've fully read. It hurts my brain to try to decipher his weird "reasoning," and so I only skim his comments for a few choice points. Especially as 85% of each of comment is just noise, and he rarely gets to his point. But that's another of his techniques. He has so little to say that he has to junk it up with insults, empty huff, and noise; as a way of hiding the fact that he has nothing to say.<BR/><BR/>And remember, he's supposedly a Poly Sci professor or something. Were it not for that, I'd assume he was half-retarded (literally, and not in the insulting sense) and I wouldn't bother. I'm still thinking the "professor" thing might be fake. He is a prime example of everything that's wrong with debates. That's why I keep this up.Doctor Biobrainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01641661532899934766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post-70269705560339992682008-04-22T12:57:00.000-05:002008-04-22T12:57:00.000-05:00That was my experience, and why I've dropped out o...That was my experience, and why I've dropped out of that argument. The primary antagonist had no point to argue, and was just running in circles trying to argue anything possible. It's hard to debate someone who claims one thing, gets called on it, reverses positions, and then attacks you on the same grounds. In fact, it's dishonest; but, then again, if he <I>was</I> honest, he wouldn't have been making those claims in the first place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post-12201719876740719742008-04-22T09:58:00.000-05:002008-04-22T09:58:00.000-05:00It's weird to me when these people lose sight of t...It's weird to me when these people lose sight of the point they are trying to make by veering off into these useless little wordgames of verbal masturbation. <BR/><BR/>or maybe - that is the only point they have.Fadedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11424781470408263435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494384.post-54768705145922619622008-04-22T03:44:00.000-05:002008-04-22T03:44:00.000-05:00I tried to read that thread but my eyes got tired ...I tried to read that thread but my eyes got tired and then my fingers got tired just scrolling. Obviously, if he never concedes, he thinks he never loses. Therefore, he is obviously not a loser.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com