Well there you have it hah.
Check your inbox.
Edit: Apparently over 7500 words will not fit. It will be public after all.
No. 1 you dug up six month old
So you've changed quite a bit since then, have you? Maybe you've signed up for some counseling, which is good. Soon you'll be rehabilitated completely
I never said I was a completely rational terminator like robot who looked at everything objectively. I said that people don't look at things like this objectively, they see a sob story and say things like "He should dig his own grave and get a bullet in the head." Things they don't actually believe, a lot of the time.
Hmm, had you been so humble right off the bat you probably wouldn't have said this:
I can because I am a rational logical human being who doesn't let his emotions run wild and dictate his thought process.
But hey, that was 6 months old. You've grown up since then. When your goal is to be the forum prick calling people out for being emotional (on emotional threads mind you), I'd recommend steering clear of idiotic, whiny rants like the one I was able to find rather easily.
Well, I have been the one diggin up old posts and claiming people said certain things in those threads. Oh no wait, that was you(albeit, incorrectly).
See, you just did it again. This is what you said:
You say somtehing, it gets proven wrong, you ignore it and then later come back and jump in with stupid remarks.
I countered it:
This isn't self-reflection time in your 12-step program. Read the entire thread on Li. It's your go-to move.
And you come back with an argument that I look up old posts claiming you've said untrue statements. Here's why you're wrong: a) using other posts on other threads isn't wrong to do. There isn't a rule on how old something is for it to show up in "court" – when you say something in the past, you still said it. Using it against an argument you're having now is a means of keeping consistency in your thoughts, opinions, ideas, and most particularly your criticisms; b) I quote you when I claim something; c) I've touched on this in the thread involving Li. You make blanket statements about one thing, and expect it not to apply to others. You also make statements that can imply a commonly associated conclusion drawn from your statement, yet when someone calls you on the conclusion drawn, you say, "well I didn't say that." It's a cop-out, and you know it. It's why your wording is so vague to begin with.
TheNegation: I own a cat.
Conclusion reached by thread member: thenegation must like cats if he's willing to take care of one.
TheNegation: No, you idiot! I never said I LIKED them, I merely said I HAD one. If you weren't so stupid you would know the difference. Get your facts straight and debate me when you've LEARNED something. Actually debate me anyway because I'm lonely and need attention.
Don't make the statements that conclusions can be drawn from in the first place if you'd like to avoid conclusions being drawn such as mentioned. So if you call a guy that murderers 10 people normal, or you think a guy who cuts someone's head off and eats him can be rehabilitated and released, be prepared when people draw conclusions like, a) you are not normal (whether it be deranged, retarded, or just stupid I'm not sure – perhaps you're a special kind of troll) and sympathize with others as such; b) you don't understand or see the need for punishment for those affected other than yourself. You've proved to be selfish in nature throughout the forum; it actually makes sense you see the events that have taken place as you have. If you'd like me to find posts of yours as proof of such, I will…you're well aware of this. I cannot promise they will be less than six months old though. There's only so many times someone can feel sorry for you for saying, "nuh uh I didn't say that!"
Genius. Have you thought about a career in standup comedy? This kind of wit isn't found all too often these days, I mean, you have to be on some sort of different intellectual playing field to come up with jabs like that.
Thanks. Now, I value your opinion…since it has to do with me, and is quite complimentary. On most everything else, I think your opinion is stupid and needs an injection of education. Only then will I respond to you.
Wow, defensive much? And try to re-read this, and see if you could make it just a tad bit less ridiculously hypocritical if you don't want to contradict yourself in the same paragraph.
No no, reread when I quoted Wawa. When you debate someone, especially when they call into question your intellect, you prop yourself up, and you knock your opponent down. Clear?
Maybe thats why you found it so "funny". Maybe thats why you don't realise that I have posted studies and statistics on rehabilitation. Maybe thats why I feel my arguments hold a little more weight than yours and namegoeshere(who unlike you is smart enough to know when he is fighting a losing battle and shuts up).
Someone who refuses to engage with TheNegation is smarter because of it? That's the first reasonable claim you've made yet.
All in GSP, if your goal was to be so incompetent as to lure me back to the thread after telling you I wouldn't reply if you didn't post something relevant and worthwhile, congratulations.
Oh good show, you've got it. I just can't get enough of you. Well done.
Step number one.
Proclaim that your opponents defense of people who carry out acts such as murder and the mentally ill signify that he himself is likely to become a murdere and be mentally ill.
The camera only shows what it records, right? That's your favorite saying, correct?
Why the hell do you like me anyway? I am a messed up loser.
"You are in favour of gay marriage? What are you a ***got?"
Do you really wanna go there?
I ******* hate women.
honeslty I don't even know what I feel anymore because I am so cut off from my emotions. And I feel ******* awful
Step number two, misatribute things that have been said that look like they might be on the same side as your opponenets argument to him. He will know the difference, but there is a good chance other people won't so he can be discredited.
I don't know why you do this.
Don't act moody and then refuse to tell me whats wrong in that stupid way girls do when they want attention, I don't have one ounce of Sympathy for you. Some of us have real problems, you know what we do? We deal with them, we don't unload them all on someone we are supposed to care about to make ourselves feel better
So, it would be reasonable to expect people to DEAL with their problems, instead of taking them out on others…right?
And who exactly do you mean when you say, "some of us have real problems"?
As a side note, you can try to exaggerate how argumentative your opponent is, for instance by claiming he initiated the argument. Did he? Who cares!
You're the most argumentative member on the forum. I really don't need to exaggerate.
Step number three, take your opponents claims out of context. In this example, a gunman who went on a shooting rampage was described as "normal". We can play on this and use it to discredit our opponenet. What they don't know was that the original discussion was about gun control, and he was being compared to organised criminals and terrorist groups who smuggle in arms.
You were quoted for what you said. You can say it was out of context all you'd like. It's right there.
If you are called out on any of this, step number 4 is of crucial importance. Simply ignore your earlier points. Do not attempt to justify them and DO NOT apologise for them or UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES admit you were wrong.
TheNegation in a nutshell.
If the point is pressed, possibly bring up some old points of your opponent on issues unrelated to the one at hand and use them to try to discredit and embarass him.
You took care of that for me.