you still do not understand. whether a person is hypocritical or not is not relevant to the point they are making. if i cheat on my wife, it doesnt make impossible for me to analyze whether you do. it is a totally separate topic. if i accuse somebody of being lazy, whether i am lazy or hypocritical is totally beside the point of whether they truly are lazy. get it? remember when i taught you what ad hominem arguments are? think back. whether a person is hypocritical is a totally different and unrelated issue. i have a friend like this, if i say his sister is stupid, he yells back that my sister is stupid, as if that proves his sister is smart. it has nothing to do with anything. it is just the way dumb people argue. it is a distraction. if i am only pretending to be smart, why would i be able to grasp anything? that doesnt make sense. for the sake of argument (and because i dont care), lets pretend i am a complete hypocrite about everything and forget it. if i accuse george bush of being a dumb christian, lets pretend i am a dumb christian too and not bother discussing that. lets discuss where i was right or wrong, not what i am . i dont care what i am.
What you don't seem to understand is that hypocrisy deals with subjectivity, not factual assertions. The facts may give rise to a certain circumstance that creates the subjectivity, but simply asserting those facts does not make one a hypocrite. Let's take a look: So, you see, from the definition of hypocrisy, if I am a football player, and I accuse someone else of being a football player, that does not make me a hypocrite. However, if I am a football player, and I accuse someone else of being dumb (or possessing some other objectionable quality) because they are a football player, that does make me one. See? Again, not a subjective circumstance. It does, however, compromise the integrity of any criticism you may have towards me if I do it. If you cheat on your wife, and then found out that I cheated on my wife, you simply have no right to chastize me for doing it. If you do, you must also chastize yourself. Otherwise, you're absolving yourself from any wrongdoing while simultaneously holding me at fault for it. Get it? Were we ever arguing over whether or not I was on my high horse? Did I ever say that I was, or was not? Nope. Therefore, what the fcuk is your point? You are, once again, fabricating a circumstance that never existed just to divert the argument. Yet another inaccurate and completely non-applicable example. I was never talking about anyones sister, I was talking about you. Don't you remember a couple of weeks ago when I called out LsuCraig for being childish and insulting in his posts, then you followed that up with something along the lines of 'this from the king of taking shots instead of discussing the issues'? I'm pretty sure that you were trying to call me hypocritical. And well, that seems to go against your 'principle' of never having use for calling someone that...which makes you a....oooohh can you guess what goes here? A distraction? You mean like arguing about the word 'diversity', and whether or not you are a 'hypocrite?' Damn, son, you're more hypocritical than I ever gave you credit for.
person a says: i think x is a factor when dealing with y. contained chaos says: you are a loser person a says, thats nice, but that doesnt prove i was wrong about x. why do you disagree with my assertion about x? contained chaos: seriously, you are a loser, therefore your assertion about x is wrong. person a: what do i have to do with anything? i am talking about x. contained chaos: i am 99% sure you are a hypocrite! of course not, you rarely address anything except the other person. any point results in taking shots at the other guy. thats my whole point. it was a mistake for me to restart discussing anything with you. i blame myself for expecting you to have something to say.
You're arguing with yourself, martin. That is why you are a terrible arguer. You fabricate elements that never existed, and try to coerce your opponent into discussing something completely unrelated. I don't even need to point out the numerous flaws in your scenario above because they are an embodiment of all the ones I pointed out in the past 2 or 3 posts. If you actually read the content of my posts, you might not sound so completely foolish. But whatever floats your boat, kiddo. I would think that in a city as big and exciting as yours, you could find something more slightly entertaining, or maybe make a friend or two.
nope, i am a loser. if you will read my previous post, you will see that the next move in your procedure is to call me a hypocrite, thus completeting the CC cycle.
