- 25 Mar 2017 02:52
#14789823
...And that former's slave was named Fredrick Douglas. Which reputiated Sun Tzu's "vile" narrative to that point.
Sure. He was being emotional in deciding that Frederick Douglas was no longer an acceptable example in reality, simply in Sun Tzu's feeling about him despite from reality.
That's not really what I said, but I guess that's a close enough approximation. But you asked whether I was using a tactic or not and implied you'd like to know why. So I explained and, in this post, I'm wrapping up an example.
But I don't think you're actually that interested in knowing why I framed the posts in the way that I did. I note that you neglected to mention my frist post in this topic which was researched, cited, and related to Oxy's OP. And you characterized my later responses with a classic, "I know you are...But what am I?" Defence, which is certainly what people go for when I point out that their ideological brethren are not making rational statements but are instead relying on a feeling* or emotion instead of acknowledging facts. You also peppered in words for emotional validation like, "rape," and whatnot which I certainly did not use.
But, nonetheless, you asked about my tactic (and implicitly my philosophy behind it) and this was the answer. I'm a little disappointed that you fell back on this, with all due respect (as I do think you're a respectable guy). But I guess that just shows that a rightwinger can't have a discussion without trying to pepper his responses with an emotional punch despite evidence clearly to the contrary in the same thread.
*Perhaps would it be helpful if I said, "gut feeling." I find this somewhat interesting as it seems to be the same thing, but people don't react in the same manner when the word, "gut" is included. I suspect that this may have something to do with a certain cue that comes from an anatomical preface, as if that separates a feeling it from the hysterical. However it is the exact same thing in practical language use.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
SolarCross wrote:Sun Tzu then mentions someone called Fredrick Douglas to what purpose is not clear but it seems the fact that he is not pure black seems to have something to do with it. Then disjointedly he makes a brief case that slaves may not always have been mistreated because they were property and people generally look after their property.
SolarCross wrote:Then you jump in screaming rape and throw down a narrative made by a former slave which reveals some pretty vile treatment but this is as much missing the point of the topic as Sun Tzu.
...And that former's slave was named Fredrick Douglas. Which reputiated Sun Tzu's "vile" narrative to that point.
SolarCross wrote:It is at this point you lose your shit and start accusing him of being emotional and such
Sure. He was being emotional in deciding that Frederick Douglas was no longer an acceptable example in reality, simply in Sun Tzu's feeling about him despite from reality.
SolarCross wrote:Your defence of this is that it is for countering post-modernism which is pretty bizarre as it stands.
That's not really what I said, but I guess that's a close enough approximation. But you asked whether I was using a tactic or not and implied you'd like to know why. So I explained and, in this post, I'm wrapping up an example.
But I don't think you're actually that interested in knowing why I framed the posts in the way that I did. I note that you neglected to mention my frist post in this topic which was researched, cited, and related to Oxy's OP. And you characterized my later responses with a classic, "I know you are...But what am I?" Defence, which is certainly what people go for when I point out that their ideological brethren are not making rational statements but are instead relying on a feeling* or emotion instead of acknowledging facts. You also peppered in words for emotional validation like, "rape," and whatnot which I certainly did not use.
But, nonetheless, you asked about my tactic (and implicitly my philosophy behind it) and this was the answer. I'm a little disappointed that you fell back on this, with all due respect (as I do think you're a respectable guy). But I guess that just shows that a rightwinger can't have a discussion without trying to pepper his responses with an emotional punch despite evidence clearly to the contrary in the same thread.
*Perhaps would it be helpful if I said, "gut feeling." I find this somewhat interesting as it seems to be the same thing, but people don't react in the same manner when the word, "gut" is included. I suspect that this may have something to do with a certain cue that comes from an anatomical preface, as if that separates a feeling it from the hysterical. However it is the exact same thing in practical language use.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!