This is the post that Randy Shipley posted before putting me in block. He could've taken the rebuttal in private. But, since he couldn't concede gracefully in a private setting, I'm dismantling his reply in a public setting. This post is broken into two parts.
I wouldn't be doing this for almost 16 years if it weren't fun. Again, I don't engage in debates unless two conditions are simultaneously met:
1. I have extensive first-hand experience or studied knowledge on the topic...
2. The opposition clearly doesn't know what they're talking about...
Both these conditions have been met on this thread, just as they were met in other debates that I've been involved with. Once the debate gets underway, a third requirement kicks in...
3. The opposition provides a rebuttal that must be met with a counter rebuttal.
The reality is that the opposition has no argument. If they had any sense of logic, they would admit to being wrong. They'd follow that action by going back to check the validity of their argument with the view of embracing what the facts dictate... Not what their feelings dictate. The opposition won't do this, as they want to remain in the fight. When they do this, against what the facts dictate, the opposition reveals their apparent psychological profiles.
You guys are clearly wrong, but you guys refuse to recognize or accept that. Your reactions show that. The opposition's continuing the debate, despite being thoroughly proven wrong, shows an opposition that's driven by narcissism, by control issues, by anger issues, by stress issues, etc.
The opposition, including you, is driven by emotion and by what feels "good" or "right" rather than what's actually is right.
Randy Shipley: [Name redacted] - you are perhaps the happiest person on Facebook, at least on this thread - although [Name redacted] is close.
I wouldn't be doing this for almost 16 years if it weren't fun. Again, I don't engage in debates unless two conditions are simultaneously met:
1. I have extensive first-hand experience or studied knowledge on the topic...
2. The opposition clearly doesn't know what they're talking about...
Both these conditions have been met on this thread, just as they were met in other debates that I've been involved with. Once the debate gets underway, a third requirement kicks in...
3. The opposition provides a rebuttal that must be met with a counter rebuttal.
The reality is that the opposition has no argument. If they had any sense of logic, they would admit to being wrong. They'd follow that action by going back to check the validity of their argument with the view of embracing what the facts dictate... Not what their feelings dictate. The opposition won't do this, as they want to remain in the fight. When they do this, against what the facts dictate, the opposition reveals their apparent psychological profiles.
You guys are clearly wrong, but you guys refuse to recognize or accept that. Your reactions show that. The opposition's continuing the debate, despite being thoroughly proven wrong, shows an opposition that's driven by narcissism, by control issues, by anger issues, by stress issues, etc.
The opposition, including you, is driven by emotion and by what feels "good" or "right" rather than what's actually is right.
No comments:
Post a Comment