Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

bertatberts



    Posts: 1556
  • Darwins +68/-8

You gave me a negative Darwin with these words " Don't just state your opinion, explain your reasoning. "Which I found amusing considering I had stated in a previous post, that it was merely your opinion with no hint of evidence.
So it was only fair you received the same.
If I could have had your negative Darwin of me removed for unfairness, I would have. So my only recourse was to return the favour, was it not.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with maturity, just fairness.
So, let's compare the two posts, shall we?

Anfauglir: I'm sorry, I think Joe's point flew right over your head.
it appears you haven't put much thought into it.
You gave no reasons, no examples, just stated your opinion and left it at that.

Andrea Yates would have drowned her kids regardless of religion.  Hitler wouldn't have had a convenient religious sub-group to target, but he could certainly have targeted racial sub-types.  The Crusades were basically a kind of imperialism; you'll note that the Crusaders lived like kings in the Holy Land during the time they did conquer it, suggesting that piety was not exactly high on their list of priorities.  And 9/11 is a textbook example of "asymmetrical warfare", which certainly doesn't need religion.
As I've said before, the first one was a misspeak on my part.  But the rest I gave examples of how they could have related to non-religious things.  In other words, I did support what I was saying.

By the way, an excessive concern over "fairness" is usually a sign of immaturity.  I didn't give you a Darwin smack because I felt you were being unfair to Anfauglir, I gave you a Darwin smack because I felt that your attitude towards him, and later towards me, was very condescending.  You simply stated an opinion about Anfauglir's post without supporting it, and when he asked if you couldn't have explained Joe's point to him so he would have gotten it, you blew it off, apparently so that you could criticize me the same way.  Even then, I didn't smack you until you'd responded to me with an even more condescending attitude, blowing off my suggestion that you explain your reasoning when you're criticizing someone as a "strawman", claiming that I'd been engaging in the same behavior I was criticizing Joe about, and claiming that I'd not once given "evidence" for my opinion in this thread, even though I'd been supporting my posts in general.

So you smacked me back, which is your prerogative since it's your opinion.  Nonetheless, the main reason you smacked me, as you yourself admitted, is because you didn't feel it was fair that you got smacked, so you decided to smack me back and throw my words in my face, because you felt the two posts to be the same general thing.  Except that they clearly were not, as I've showed above.  So what we're left with is you being upset about the unfairness of being smacked and deciding to give one back in order to return the favor.  Not the best way to show maturity and dignity in an argument.
And to write two extremely large posts explaining the reasons for said smites, isn't childish at all is it.

Very amusing indeed!

 
Changed Change Reason Date
rickymooston A smite isnt a good argument. You also started this tiff. April 07, 2012, 01:34:51 AM
Whateverman He complains about lack of explanation, then calls such explan April 06, 2012, 08:25:20 PM
Azdgari Childish. April 06, 2012, 07:13:10 PM
One Above All Complains about smite; complains about explanation April 06, 2012, 07:10:25 PM