Here is an exchange between myself and either a ‘Save Me/Feed Me’ or an Enabler trying to counter.
It is a textbook example of how, when challenged to defend their emotivism, so often they are able to dispel words, but nothing closely resembling a cogent thought.
After I made my original post (See below) we had another ‘Save Me/Feed Me’ or Enabler post a ‘snoozing’ smiley face. (Save Me/Feed Me’s and enablers love to use smiley icons to defend their positions.)
My response to the smiley was:
BM: That is quite a rebuttal. (What’s the matter? Too many three syllable words?)
Then here come JG to the rescue with this amazing offering. What follows is the result of our exchange:
JG: That was all the rebuttal the original post warranted. It was nonsense.
BM: How was it nonsense?
JG: How was it NOT nonsense? It showed a complete failure to grasp even the basic concepts of this issue.
BM: Enlighten us on the basic concepts of the issue.
JG: I’d scarcely know where to begin. Why don’t you go take an Econ 101 course and then maybe we can talk.
BM: In other words, your lack of critical thinking skills have failed you once again. You are confusing emotivism for reason.
JG: No, it is just that it is pointless to discuss calculus with someone who can’t do basic math.
BM: “No, it is just that it is pointless to discuss calculus with someone who can’t do basic math.” = waving white flag.
Thanks JG for your weak, poor defense of your position and for yet another example of the Enabler mindset.
Blake
Source: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000082/nest/125139726?p=1
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Enabler Waves The White Flag As Opposed To Defending Argument
Tags: Add new tag, Change, Clinton, Conservative, Cry Babies, Democrats, Enablers, Feed Me, Freedom, Leftist, Liberals, Liberty, Obama, Political Commentary, Progressives, Save Me, Socialists
Here is an exchange between myself and either a ‘Save Me/Feed Me’ or an Enabler trying to counter.
It is a textbook example of how, when challenged to defend their emotivism, so often they are able to dispel words, but nothing closely resembling a cogent thought.
After I made my original post (See below) we had another ‘Save Me/Feed Me’ or Enabler post a ‘snoozing’ smiley face. (Save Me/Feed Me’s and enablers love to use smiley icons to defend their positions.)
My response to the smiley was:
BM: That is quite a rebuttal. (What’s the matter? Too many three syllable words?)
Then here come JG to the rescue with this amazing offering. What follows is the result of our exchange:
JG: That was all the rebuttal the original post warranted. It was nonsense.
BM: How was it nonsense?
JG: How was it NOT nonsense? It showed a complete failure to grasp even the basic concepts of this issue.
BM: Enlighten us on the basic concepts of the issue.
JG: I’d scarcely know where to begin. Why don’t you go take an Econ 101 course and then maybe we can talk.
BM: In other words, your lack of critical thinking skills have failed you once again. You are confusing emotivism for reason.
JG: No, it is just that it is pointless to discuss calculus with someone who can’t do basic math.
BM: “No, it is just that it is pointless to discuss calculus with someone who can’t do basic math.” = waving white flag.
Thanks JG for your weak, poor defense of your position and for yet another example of the Enabler mindset.
Blake
Source: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000082/nest/125139726?p=1
Like this: