XPost: calgary.general, can.general, tor.general 
 XPost: van.general 
 From: klunk@theothershoe.org 
  
 >>> What if none of it is true?  Then you'll cry.  BOO HOO Irish eyes are 
 >>> flooding with tears 
  
 >>geezus schweep... are you at all capable of communicating WITHOUT childish 
 >>taunts... man! you need some serious psychological help with your 
 >>insecurities.... 
  
 > Oh do I?  So point me to where in the DSM it says anything about people who 
 > mock idiots having 'serious psychological insecurities'.  I mean, you're 
 not 
 > just talking out of your ass as usual, are you?  You must have some sort of 
 > academically authoratative reference for supporting your pathetic abuse, 
 > right? 
 > 
 > Do you even realize how pathetic it is to suggest that a person mocking 
 > anothers colossal stupidity has 'psychological problems'?  First of all, 
 there 
 > is a long tradition among losers, sometimes manifesting among entire 
 cultures 
 > (see Scotland) who think that anyone who tries to actually learn about 
 stuff, 
 > and NOT be a moron is 'arrogant' and is an abberation from the community of 
 > illiterate twits. 
 > 
 > The sad fact is that neither of us have any 'psycholgical problems'.  The 
 > difference between us is that I have enough self-worth to actually make a 
 > concerted effort to make myself more intelligent, by embracing the tools of 
 > critical thinking, while you are content to be a complete ignoramus.  I 
 have 
 a 
 > RIGHT to be mocking others when they are WRONG, you don't have a right to 
 be 
 > mocking me for being right.  Doing so is just a reflection of your own 
 > pathetic 
 > situation.  And if you actually bothered to think about it, you might 
 realize 
 > how unsatisfying that routine is.  If you're not going to argue 
 intelligently, 
 > the only way you can win an argument is by ranting, raving, and abusing in 
 any 
 > possible way you can. 
 > 
 > What you, and most people don't realize is that people learn how to argue 
 > effectively through evolutionary, not critical means.  So people develop 
 > habits 
 > that have worked for them in the past.  For example, if I want to convince 
 you 
 > that the moon is made of green cheese, I might say "well it looks a lot 
 like 
 > cheese, doesn't it?", then I would observe your reaction to see if that 
 > argument seemed convincing to you.  If it did, I'll surely use it again 
 next 
 > time I talk to someone about the moon being made of green cheese.  If your 
 > reaction was disbelief, then I might try another approach.  I might wave my 
 > fist, raise my voice and say "the moon is definitely made of green 
 cheese!". 
 > Then I'd observe your reaction again.  If you submit to that approach, I 
 will 
 > probably file it away and use it again.  That's how we've arrived at where 
 we 
 > are today, whereby we can identify common types of arguments called 
 > 'fallacies' that have developed evolutionarily over the eons.  The only way 
 to 
 > get around this unconscious means of argumentation is to take a critical 
 > approach, by identifying fallacious arguments before we issue them, and 
 then 
 > choosing not to. 
 > 
 > The simpliest, most obvious, and probably most common fallacy is 'argument 
 to 
 > ignorance', which you exhibited today in the 'freethinker' conversation. 
 > Since 
 > your initial statment was "what's a freethinker, you get your thoughts 
 from a 
 > garage sale?', you lost the argument before I even got a word in because 
 you 
 > exhibited that you were unaware that the term 'freethinker' has a long and 
 > rich 
 > history and thus, a specific definition.  In otherwords, for any sort of 
 > reasonable discussion to occur, all participating parties have to have some 
 > understanding of what they're discussing. 
 > 
 > As for me mocking stupidity, you don't have to worry about that.  Because 
 if 
 > I'm  wrong then I will be looking that much more foolish.  That's exactly 
 what 
 > happened when you tried to mock me for refering to myself as a 
 'freethinker'. 
 > Since you didn't know what a freethinker was, you ended up looking like the 
 > total fool you are.  We take a risk when we decide to mock stupidity.  I 
 only 
 > take that risk when I am quite sure I am right.  If you would take that 
 > approach more often, you wouldn't constantly be making a complete fool of 
 > yourself, and fretting over your ensuing angst. 
  
 ROTFLMAO 8-D 
 when you've calmed down and taken a breath.... in another day or two... re- 
 read 
 your own drivel idiot... i think some village is looking for you. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)