Pretty sure I never said that either. All kinds of fail today.
Nobody is claiming you said these things. Since you don't seem to be getting it I'll walk through the process.
You say dumb things. We take your dumb things, further apply the same dumb 'logic' you seem to be using to conclude the dumb things you say, and push those dumb methods to the next step. This next step is usually so ridiculous even the person saying the original dumb thing, using their dumb logic, sees the fault in the new statement. It's a rhetorical technique used to disprove an original flawed statement or theory.
For instance, the statement is made that JR Smith has similar stats to Klay Thompson. The statement is also made that the Cavs have a better defense than the Warriors in the playoffs. If we assume these two statements are true, the next logical step is to conclude that since JR Smith and Klay Thompson are similar in the playoffs, but JR Smith has been contributing to a better defense, thus it's logical to conclude that JR Smith is a greater asset and better player than Klay Thompson.
In the form of a logical proof it looks as followed:
If Thompson and Smith have similar stats,
And Smith has contributed to a better defense,
Then Smith is ultimately the more valuable or better player.
See, this doesn't work, not even if your own dumb head. It's absurd, because attributing any defensive success to JR Smith is something nobody would believe. Your gut tells you no, JR Smith can't be seen as better than another player on account of defense. Also, while their stats may be the 'same' to some analyzing them, they've come from different play-styles and with differing affects. No team puts a top defender on JR Smith, while Klay Thompson is more prone to other teams trying to stifle his role in his respective offense. In part, that's because Klay Thompson contributes in more and arguably in better ways, like driving to the basket, cutting without the ball, passing the ball.
One assumes the original statements true, follows their conclusion to a logical fallacy, and must conclude one or both of the original statements must be false.
See, it's not so much we're just callously making fun of you, but that we're making fun of your capacity for logical, coherent thought.
edit: and before you defend yourself by saying some other dumb retard said the thing about the Cavs defense, a) we know you nodded in agreement to that dumb 'stat' b) you're all the same retard to me and c) the same logical fallacy could be made using the fact JR Smith missed time because he swung at a dude so is obviously a greater liability to his team.