Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...
- Thread starter Balthazar_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Phazael
Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
- 14,664
- 31,522
Trolling requires a level of self awareness Tanoomba has shown repeatedly he lacks. He just moves the goal post so much that even he forgot what the fuck he was arguing. Think that's the third time this thread and even Mist walked off when he went off the rails the second time.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,782
- 8,267
You know exactly who that 'obnoxious asshole' is. 'Destroys'? The only thing Peter Joseph 'destroyed' in that absurd debate was any credibility he had left.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Seriously? Come on, dude, Steffie is the embodiment of dishonest argument. In fact, he uses many of the exact same argument "techniques" I see repeatedly on threads like this (erecting strawmen, exaggerating or distorting his opponent's point for effect, making big deals out of small tangents, etc). Not by you so much, by the way.
It's remarkably reassuring, actually. If this nutjob can get so much attention and respect (!) by being such a dishonest pompous braggart, thenof courselegions of internet jocks will emulate his "hyper-reductionist douchebaggery" approach in attempts to win their own arguments. How could they not? It's the path of least resistance with the added bonuses of blowjobs from everyone who "agrees" with you (ie: People who have no idea of actually considering the subject at hand).
"He is one walking passive aggressive arrogant prick. For those of you that can see through the noise, you'll notice this exceptionally condescending air of authority radiating from everything that Stefan does as he sits atop of his pedestal..."
Spot on, and a description that could just as easily be applied to many people here.
rhinohelix
Dental Dammer
- 3,043
- 5,009
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,782
- 8,267
Oh don't get me wrong, I think SM is a huge douche, and you are spot on with your critiques of his argument methods. However, just because I believe that, doesn't mean I'm gonna give Peter a pass here. Mr. Joseph needs to stick to reading off a script. His performance in that debate was extremely lacking, and he certainly didn't 'destroy' Stefan (mind you, I had to stop watching after about an hour from sheer pain). His lack of formal education oozes off of him like a reeking bodily fluid, and is very apparent in his style of argument. His inability to cite sources for even his most basic of claims is quite alarming.
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
Consent.
When I asked to bring an actual case about a NON minor, you were unable to find a case and ended up saying, and I quote.
"well, laws apply to minor don't they" Which signaled how much of a retard statement that was.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
I think the informal nature of the debate prevented citing sources, but here is a short video where he goes into more detail about his points and references several studies.
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,722
- 9,087
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Repeatedly been addressed. That conversation has reached its inevitable conclusion ages ago, and it turns out youcan'tgive legal consent when you're too drunk, despite plenty of knee-jerk angry rejecting of that fact from several people here. Of course, after I proved that several times over, it became "Wellof courseyou can't give legal consent when you're too drunk! Who ever argued otherwise?" (Hint: Nearly everybody here). Do I need to link to the post-argumentrecap postthat chronicles all this again?
Unless you still feel there's something to argue there, I don't understand what you are hoping to prove by bringing up consent again.
*Sigh* You edited your post and I remember now that you were one of the stragglers still trying to contradict me, even after everyone else was on board. Yes, Lendarios, laws do apply to minors. As you noticed from several cases, the exact same law was used to charge both adults and minors. Of course, in the end it doesn't even matter who's being charged. What matters is what the law is, and we now all know what the law is since we've seen it explicitly statedin case law.
But by all means, keep trying to pretend you have a leg to stand on.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,782
- 8,267
I think you'd be right if Joseph kept it informal, but he started dropping totally unsubstantiated statistical claims like 'most divorces happen because of financial reasons'. That's a pretty easy claim to back up if you have even a single credible source. He got caught supporting his position with an anecdote, and it made him look like an ass. If he pulled that shit here one of us would have eaten him alive. Show up prepared or don't show up IMO.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
The point is I posted a Peter Joseph video where ha talks specifically about "human nature" and how the environment plays a bigger role than any other factor in determining how we behave. This is what we were talking about, right? Then you dismissed it right off the bat for no reason at all except that you apparently have something against Peter Joseph.
To show you that Mr. Joseph actually knows what he's talking about, I linked a video where he takes on one of everyone's favorite MRA defenders to debate capitalism. The topic is not relevant to this discussion, but I figured a good defense of Joseph's credibility would be a debate where he tears apart a popular and apparently respected internet personality.
Then when Quaid expressed doubts as to how ferociously Molly was being shredded, I linked to a video where Joseph breaks down Molly's "technique" and exposes him as either a pathological bullshitter or a con artist, a critique which could just as easily be applied to you, my friend (although I'd put you firmly on the "pathological bullshitter" side).
Does that answer your question?
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,722
- 9,087
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Fair enough. I will agree that he should have had his sources ready for any relevant points he wanted to bring up. Apparently Citibankdid a surveywhere 57% of divorced couples claimed money problems as the primary reason for their divorce. A researcher found that arguing about money is thetop predictor of divorce, and while articleslike thisdon't count as research, they do illustrate that we generally acknowledge money as a significant factor in determining people's ability to stay married.
Peter was not well prepared to defend that particular point, and that's on him. Doesn't change that he simply made a much stronger case than Molyneux, who was only interested in dishonest "debate" designed to put himself on a pedestal.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
So don't really feel like watching a meanspirited debate, but I am curious what SM claimed as the main cause of divorce? Was it the MRA stuff that Dumar has been espousing in the marriage thread, that women are always on the lookout to ditch their current spouse and marry up?
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
As for SM, generally I find his videos pretty detestable, but his breakdown of the facts of the Trayvon Martin trial was really good. So I have some residual fondness for that, though his rant at the end of the video that it was all due to spanking was silly. Mind you, I dislike spanking also, but claiming it had anything to do with Trayvon was pretty silly.
