Some idiot on CNN compared SARS to cancer and AIDS (and: don't go to Toronto!)

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
You really are an idiot if you think i'm going to do that. .

There you go against with *personal* insults at my character. I made no such insults towards you.

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Instead of debating on the merits of my post like you so advocated last week, you called my post 'ridiculous' (not to mention that you didn't even comprehend the post correctly)

Yes, I called your *post* ridiculous, I did not call *you* ridiculous. There is a very well defined line between *your idea* and *your person*.

I made no insults towards you. I only addressed *your post*, as I said should be done.


So I have addressed your point, and you have made personal insults at me personally.

I took insult in that last week you were advocating against being opinionated, and here you are, being a hypocrit and opinionated.

Ok, i guess i should change 'You're an idiot' to 'I think you're an idiot' if opinions are a valid form of arguing again.

 

[0roo0roo]

sweet desperation😛 only digging the hole deeper of course🙂 not that i have to go to canada anytime soon😛

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic


I took insult in that last week you were advocating against being opinionated, and here you are, being a hypocrit and opinionated.

Ok, i guess i should change 'You're an idiot' to 'I think you're an idiot' if opinions are a valid form of arguing again.

You are missing the point here. You are supposed to stick to the topic at hand, which is SARS. Focusing on my character in this debate is completely uncalled for.

And here you go again, for the third time in the thread, focusing your attacks on my character instead of the topic at hand.

Personally attacking someone's character in a debate is not acceptable behavior. Stick to the point at hand, SARS.

 

[Marshallj]

Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Moralpanic


I took insult in that last week you were advocating against being opinionated, and here you are, being a hypocrit and opinionated.

Ok, i guess i should change 'You're an idiot' to 'I think you're an idiot' if opinions are a valid form of arguing again.

You are missing the point here. You are supposed to stick to the topic at hand, which is SARS. Focusing on my character in this debate is completely uncalled for.

And here you go again, for the third time in the thread, focusing your attacks on my character instead of the topic at hand.

Personally attacking someone's character in a debate is not acceptable behavior. Stick to the point at hand, SARS.

Um, if you would follow the posts, i did. The first post asked WHY you thought it was ridiculous... that was the discussion. My second post focused on your hypocrisy... it had nothing to do with the previous discussion. Again, i ask you, if you are so against opinions, why was it an opinion all you gave me to my post?

 

[Martin]

Lastman has every right to be mad at WHO. SARS has not spread among communities like in Hong Kong or China, all the cases are associated with hospitals (like nurses getting exposed to it and such). As if that wasn't enough, the WHO is singled out Toronto. Singapore has a similar number of SARS deaths, but the WHO hasn't put a travel advisory on them (IIRC, only china, hong kong and toronto so far)

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak

I'm not attacking you to get my point across... i got my point across just fine in the discussion. I was attacking your hypocrisy when i called you an idiot, and i still stand by that opinion.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Lastman has every right to be mad at WHO. SARS has not spread among communities like in Hong Kong or China, all the cases are associated with hospitals (like nurses getting exposed to it and such). As if that wasn't enough, the WHO is singled out Toronto. Singapore has a similar number of SARS deaths, but the WHO hasn't put a travel advisory on them (IIRC, only china, hong kong and toronto so far)

There has been verified cases of people visiting Toronto and returning infected back to their own country.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Um, if you would follow the posts, i did. The first post asked WHY you thought it was ridiculous... that was the discussion.

Up until this point, the conversation was going fine. You disagreed with me on the topic, and that is respectable. We are able to talk about it like gentlemen.

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
My second post focused on your hypocrisy... it had nothing to do with the previous discussion. Again, i ask you, if you are so against opinions, why was it an opinion all you gave me to my post?

Now THIS is where you crossed the line. Focusing on one's character is NOT an acceptable act in a discussion. It is personal and vindictive.

I am not against your opinion *about the point*, but am I am against your personal opinions about one's character. It is out of the scope of the discussion, it is uncalled for, and it's just a plain "low class" thing to do.

And let me remind you, STILL I have not directed any personal attacks at you, while your point has completely changed over from discussing SARS to attacking my character.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Um, if you would follow the posts, i did. The first post asked WHY you thought it was ridiculous... that was the discussion.

Up until this point, the conversation was going fine. You disagreed with me on the topic, and that is respectable. We are able to talk about it like gentlemen.

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
My second post focused on your hypocrisy... it had nothing to do with the previous discussion. Again, i ask you, if you are so against opinions, why was it an opinion all you gave me to my post?

Now THIS is where you crossed the line. Focusing on one's character is NOT an acceptable act in a discussion. It is personal and vindictive.

I am not against your opinion *about the point*, but am I am against your personal opinions about one's character. It is out of the scope of the discussion, it is uncalled for, and it's just a plain "low class" thing to do.

And let me remind you, STILL I have not directed any personal attacks at you, while your point has completely changed over from discussing SARS to attacking my character.

I don't like hypocrits... and you are clearly one. Last week you were all up in arms about people being opinionated, and not discussing stuff... and here you are, instead of pointing out why my post was ridiculous (which you improperly comprehended), you gave me an opinion. And i'm just doing the same, giving my opinion of you.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic


I'm not attacking you to get my point across... i got my point across just fine in the discussion. I was attacking your hypocrisy when i called you an idiot, and i still stand by that opinion.

Focusing your attention on a person's character in any discussion is uncalled for. It is a common mistake made in a discussion or debate.

It's the common situation where you cannot attack the argument, so you attack the person.


How would you like it if I let my emotion take over and I started insulting you personally instead of remaining calm and addressing the topic?


The personal attacks against me were uncalled for, and I expect an apology.

 

[Looney]

Focusing your attention on a person's character in any discussion is uncalled for. It is a common mistake made in a discussion or debate.

It's the common situation where you cannot attack the argument, so you attack the person.

Just like my post, you're comprehending the fallacy incorrectly. I never attacked your character to get my point across... i argued you successfully in my other post. I'm attacking your character because of your behavior... which is clearly hypocritical. Maybe before you start throwing fallacies around, you should understand what they are.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
I don't like hypocrits... and you are clearly one. Last week you were all up in arms about people being opinionated, and not discussing stuff... and here you are, instead of pointing out why my post was ridiculous (which you improperly comprehended), you gave me an opinion. And i'm just doing the same, giving my opinion of you.

You spelled "hypocrites" wrong.

And I did address your point, and explain why I thought your point was ridiculous. I pointed out that it is not any longer 1918, there is better healthcare, and epidemics are better controlled.

You are not mentally equipped to hold an intellectual conversation with me, so you have quickly resorted to personally insulting me. How much do you expect me to take before I sink to your level and tear you apart?

 

[Looney]

You spelled "hypocrites" wrong.

That's how you can tell somebody doesn't have anything substantial to say... they start pointing out spelling and grammatical errors.

And I did address your point, and explain why I thought your point was ridiculous.

Not in your very first post... maybe you also lack an attention span inaddition to comprehension problems/

I pointed out that it is not any longer 1918, there is better healthcare, and epidemics are better controlled.

Only AFTER you gave the opinion.

You are not mentally equipped to hold an intellectual conversation with me, so you have quickly resorted to personally insulting me. How much do you expect me to take before I sink to your level and tear you apart?

LOLOL is that a threat?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic


Just like my post, you're comprehending the fallacy incorrectly. I never attacked your character to get my point across... i argued you successfully in my other post. I'm attacking your character because of your behavior... which is clearly hypocritical. Maybe before you start throwing fallacies around, you should understand what they are.

I DO understand the fallacy.

Attacking the person you are debating with is uncalled for, period. There is NO situation where you are supposed to revert to attacks on their character. Doing so is a fallacy in itself. It breaches the moral guidelines in an civilized argument, and transforms the argument into a mudslinging contest.

I have been more than patient with you, but it is coming to the point where you have proven that you will not stop the personal insults, and I'm going to reply in kind.

 

[Marshallj]

How old are you, moralpanic? You seem to lack the mental faculties that I've come to expect in dealing with a post-pubescent adult.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Moralpanic


Just like my post, you're comprehending the fallacy incorrectly. I never attacked your character to get my point across... i argued you successfully in my other post. I'm attacking your character because of your behavior... which is clearly hypocritical. Maybe before you start throwing fallacies around, you should understand what they are.

I DO understand the fallacy.

Attacking the person you are debating with is uncalled for, period. There is NO situation where you are supposed to revert to attacks on their character. Doing so is a fallacy in itself. It breaches the moral guidelines in an civilized argument, and transforms the argument into a mudslinging contest.

I have been more than patient with you, but it is coming to the point where you have proven that you will not stop the personal insults, and I'm going to reply in kind.

Oh, shut up with your whining.

Shut up

Those are from the last couple of days... like i said, you're a hypocrite.

 

[Marshallj]

These do not even apply to *this* argument. I gave you no reason to disrespect me, yet you quickly lost your temper and personally insulted me.

But now you have worn my nice side out, and I'm going to treat you like the runny nose little bitch that you are.

Do you want to challenge me? I'd love to meet you sometime. That really puts things into perspective. You act like a big man online, but I want to see how you act in front of me.

This is probably the reason that you are so vocal and disrespectful online... because you cannot do it in real life. I am more than willing to meet you and give you a *real* chance to disrespect me. But I have a feeling that you'll pull the "nice guy" routine on me that many vocal pansies have done.

I try to be nice, but my patient DOES and HAS worn out. I've done some pretty nasty things to people that I don't really regret. By the time somone has pissed me off to that point, they pretty much deserve anything they have coming to them.

So when would you like to meet me? I'm willing to drive pretty far to take care of business. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
These do not even apply to *this* argument. I gave you no reason to disrespect me, yet you quickly lost your temper and personally insulted me.

But now you have worn my nice side out, and I'm going to treat you like the runny nose little bitch that you are.

Do you want to challenge me? I'd love to meet you sometime. That really puts things into perspective. You act like a big man online, but I want to see how you act in front of me.

This is probably the reason that you are so vocal and disrespectful online... because you cannot do it in real life. I am more than willing to meet you and give you a *real* chance to disrespect me. But I have a feeling that you'll pull the "nice guy" routine on me that many vocal pansies have done.

I try to be nice, but my patient DOES and HAS worn out. I've done some pretty nasty things to people that I don't really regret. By the time somone has pissed me off to that point, they pretty much deserve anything they have coming to them.

So when would you like to meet me? I'm willing to drive pretty far to take care of business. Wouldn't be the first time.

LOLOLOLOL ethug now huh? Mr. Debate can't argue with me successfully so now needs to get violent? Is there a fallacy for that?

 

[Marshallj]

You can't do anything to me but talk. Guys like you are all bark and no bite. Or should I say "all yap". You want to talk a big line, but you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Meet me halfway so we can videotape our "discussion" and post it on Off Topic. The proof will be in the pudding.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
LOLOLOLOL ethug now huh? Mr. Debate can't argue with me successfully so now needs to get violent? Is there a fallacy for that?

I was *more* than willing to talk issues with you, but you wanted it to be personal. So being the accomodating guy that I am, I'm giving the chance to make it personal.

I'm not a thug, I'm just somone who does not play games. Do you want to talk about the issues, or do you want it to be of a more personal nature?

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
You can't do anything to me but talk. Guys like you are all bark and no bite. Or should I say "all yap". You want to talk a big line, but you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Meet me halfway so we can videotape our "discussion" and post it on Off Topic. The proof will be in the pudding.

LOL right. Unlike you, i don't need to prove myself. You've shown yourself as a hypocrite over and over in this thread. And now you're just doing it again... if there's a fallacy for flaming people in an argument, there has to be a worst fallacy for getting violent in an argument?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic


Listen man, I'm just a 18 year old geek who talks a big game online. I never meant anything by it, honest!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

How much foreplay is necessary before you guys just bang and get it over with . . . geez.

Actually, there's a SARS subclass of superspreaders. These people carry virulent strains and for some unidentified reason(s) are exceptionally contagious. An index case in Toronto was responsible for a significant fraction of all cases in Canada. I believe WHO put out a blanket travel advisory several weeks ago . . . for areas with confirmed SARS outbreaks.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
LOL right. Unlike you, i don't need to prove myself. You've shown yourself as a hypocrite over and over in this thread. And now you're just doing it again... if there's a fallacy for flaming people in an argument, there has to be a worst fallacy for getting violent in an argument?

I wanted to keep it strictly issue-oriented and not be personal in any way. But you kept pushing and pushing and pushing.

How much trash talking is a person supposed to take before they break down?

And YES, I am serious about meeting you half way and taping it. You have bitten off more than you can chew and it's time to put your money where your mouth is. I am MORE than willing to meet you halfway. And I'll provide the camera.

You see, I want to stick to the issues but once some punk crosses the line and won't go back, he's open game. I've given you enough chances and you blew it. I'm going to expose you for being the scrawny little punk that you are.

I am formally challenging you to meet me in person. Are you man enough to accept it?