Erin Conley Fogelberg: Well no wonder some of your old Facebook friends and some family of yours has unfriended and blocked you,
Woe be unto me! :roll: Someone blocks me in response to getting their azz handed to them in debate... that should show me a thing or two! NOT!
There are common trends among those friends and family that unfriended me.
First, they are mostly radical liberals that argue based on emotion. They think they're right, but they do not have the facts to support their arguments. When confronted with a reasoned, fact-based, argument, they demand that this argument stop.
They reply with an emotional base rant, and expect you to buy into their hysteria or misguidedness. They expect you to abandon the facts and to abandon reason. Or, they expect you to let them have the last word despite their losing the argument.
When you refuse, they unfriend you.
Second, [Radical Liberal Brother] lobbied those, that I was arguing with, to unfriend me. Those, in my family, that blocked me, did so largely due to his influence. Both you guys have been close to each other for decades. I knew that once our argument got underway, he would be encouraging you to block me.
Third, they unfriended me as compensation for their failure to argue their point against me. Some unfriended me without getting into a debate with me... because that they couldn't take me on in debate without getting their azzes handed to them.
I know exactly who in my family unfriended me, and why. It had everything to do with their being butthurt about getting destroyed in debate. They were also radical liberals.
I blocked them in response so that they never come up as a friend suggestion on Facebook. [Radical Liberal Brother] blocked me a second time when I destroyed him in debate on one of our brother's threads.
When [Radical Liberal Brother] lobbies fellow radical liberals in the family, or among our mutual friends list, to unfriend me, you can't use the "others in his family" angle. More on that later.
Sorry, but such actions aren't going to change who I am. I will continue to exercise my freedom of speech. I will continue to dismantle liberal/progressive arguments. I will not be silenced.
Erin Conley Fogelberg: you sound like a uninformed little boy having a tantrum like my 4 year old could have. Just waiting for you to stomp your feet.
Says the person that said this:
"you just anger me" -- Erin Conley
Then follow it up with this:
"No need for your novels, just make it short and to the point," -- Erin Conley
Then follow it up with this when you don't get your way:
"He may be a old classmate of mine but after this last novel I unfriended him and even blocked him." -- Erin Conley
I'm not the one that's pulling a tantrum here. Your own words indicate that you're getting angry and pulling a tantrum. When you don't get your way, you do the equivalent action of stomping your feet. In this case, you both unfriended and blocked me... Actions done in anger.
As with others that I've debated against, you tend to accuse me of having your traits.
Erin Conley Fogelberg: Sorry all just so po'd
Yes, you're pissed off that someone would dare dismantle a propaganda post that you made. You thought you had a good argument, that was until you saw my comment. It was a comment that did the equivalent of posting a Snopes article in response to a misconception post. You couldn't handle that.
How dare someone disagree with you by destroying what you thought was sound logic.
And you don't see your own contribution to this, do you? You reacted with anger. Your actions on that thread, to include your ultimately blocking me, indicate the actions of someone acting in anger.
This uncovers another problem that I detected in your replies... you have control issues. You couldn't control me, so you blocked me. By logical extension, if I did exactly what you told me to do, and if I didn't hand you your azz in debate, you wouldn't have taken those actions.
Erin Conley Fogelberg: I know domestic abuse can go both ways
You didn't realize that in the beginning, te wit:
"If all men thought as proper as these young men there wouldn't be domestic violence in the world." -- Erin Conley
Key word... ALL
That's not the statement that someone makes if they think that it cuts both ways. That's the assumption that someone makes if they think that only men cause domestic violence.
Erin Conley Fogelberg: but damn so tired of him going on tangents or even tantrums like a small child,
No, you're pissed off at the fact that you got your azz handed to you in debate. I jump onto your thread and questioned that video's validity as a representation of "what could happen" or of "what actually happens."
That video assumes that men willingly attack women, unprovoked, when there's a large percent of the domestic violence cases where the men were provoked.
What you dismiss as "tangents" is me disagreeing with the underlying themes of your video and with your arguments. I did this in a way that forced you to question your own argument.
One of two things is happening here. You're actually clueless about the topics we are arguing about, and you are only seeing this from an emotional standpoint. Or, you're reacting completely from an anger standpoint.
Again, your own words indicate you as someone pulling tantrums like a small child.
Erin Conley Fogelberg: I may be being harsh
No, this isn't something that's out of the ordinary for you.
Your attitude on your thread indicates that you're the very person that you're accusing me of being. You're acting like a 4-year-old that's pulling a tantrum and stomping his feet. Except in this case, you reacted that way on the threads, and you capped that tantrum by moving to unfriend and block me.
You're blaming your attitude on something else instead of recognizing the actual problem. You have anger, control, stress, low self-esteem, etc., issues. Instead of recognizing that you have a problem, you hint that something else is the problem... and that this is "not" normally "you."
Erin Conley Fogelberg: and I think I know it all so I'm going to write several novels.
Wrong. This is not a case where I "think" that I "know it all." This is a case where I KNOW that I'm right. Again, I argued from the standpoint experience as well as research I've done on the topic.
You accuse me of "writing novels," when one or two of your follow-on posts constitute being "novels."
This is yet another example of you accusing me of being very thing that I see in you. You accuse me of acting like the "know it all," yet here you are acting like a know it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment