About the alleged racism in Game

[Wicker]

Funny i could say the same about you

You really couldn’t. You could say the same about the guy that gave you the dictionary definition? Shockingly, you go nowhere with this, you simply state it, and offer nothing to back it up. "I could say the same about you, but I won’t because I have nothing whatsoever to help prove this WINKY FACE!!! "

implied homophobia and zealotry did not exist on the left

My quote inherently can not do this, as I said “Few” and “I see”. This could only mean that it doesn’t exist on the left to a total moron, or someone partly dyslexic and misread my words. Saying “I see” meaning what I personally see, it doesn’t address the whole group to being with. Saying “Few” means there are in fact some, at least. God damn.

Your statement implies pretty much the same thing mine did,

Only if you ignore my wording, which you have, and also tried to straw man me by changing it.

I directly quoted you above, god forbid i didn’t write exactly what you said verbatim right below it.

And then proceeded to say “So what you’re saying here is you generally don’t see homophobes or zealots on the left”, ignoring my actual quote, and entirely changing it’s meaning. Why would say “what I’m basically saying” if you had a perfectly good verbatim quote above it? It couldn’t be because you needed to use words with completely different meanings or anything. Not at all.

So you’re making this assumption simply because i didn’t write word for word what you said? I didn’t feel the need to since i directly quoted you above. If i had wanted to “alter” your words, i could have easily done that within the quote to make it look more believable.

Not an assumption, unlike you, I’m replying to your actual words, which were quoted exactly as you said them.

“If i had wanted to “alter” your words” You did. I directly quoted you arguing as if I said something else. Quoting my actual words first, then changing them doesn’t mean you didn’t change them. There isn’t a way to hide this, anyone can see that immediately after quoting me, you say “So what you’re saying here is you generally don’t see homophobes or zealots on the left, how is this not the epitome of a generalization?” You followed an altered version of what I said with an argument as to why you altered version is incorrect. This is straw man, there isn’t a way around that. Quoting my actual words first means nothing if you immediately alter them for your argument.

there fore as a general rule or generally, you don’t see them.

No. Therefore I see few in total, hence saying “I see few”, which literally means I do in fact see some. This just another straw man. All you’re doing is trying to change what I said. No, this is something far more pathetic. You’re trying to change the meaning of words. Unless I’m speaking to someone in universe in which “I see few” means “I DON’T SEE THEM”. For fucks sake, how low can you go here? Which words of mine or the dictionaries will you change next? Tune in next time.

P.S, Keep trying to argue agasint the dictionary using nothing but fallacies, it’s spectacular.

[SirWarriant]

You really couldn’t.

I guess you haven’t been reading any of my posts.

This could only mean that it doesn’t exist on the left to a total moron, or someone partly dyslexic and misread my words. Saying “I see” meaning what I personally see, it doesn’t address the whole group to being with. Saying “Few” means there are in fact some, at least. God damn.

The context in which you replied to my statement with that one, does imply that homophobia, and zealotry is a non leftist trait.

and also tried to straw man me by changing it.

I already went over the wording issue, you can keep accusing me, and making baseless assumptions that i maliciously edited your wording to suit my argument, but all it does is show your desperation to get away from the original argument.

ignoring my actual quote

Are you trolling? Do i really need to explain that i directly quoted what you said several times. Using the word generally did not in anyway change the meaning or implications of your statement.

You did.

No i did not, in any way shape or form alter your words. I quoted you, and then right below the quote.

So what you’re saying here is you generally don’t see homophobes or zealots on the left

My words not yours bud, i never claimed those were your exact words, nor did i fucking edit your damned quote. If you saw “few” homophobes and zealots on the left, then you generally wouldn’t see them, would you? Are you a non native English speaker? This might clear things up.

For fucks sake, how low can you go here?

I could ask the same from you.

You’re trying to change the meaning of words.

No I’m debating with you weather or not your statement was a generalization, you linked the dictionary definition, then proceeded to ignore it. The context in which you posted is a generalization, period, end of. If you cannot see that you’re lost.

P.S Don’t bother replying until you go back, and read through all my posts, you clearly have not done that.

[wellgoodmornin]

His statement wasn’t a generalization. I don’t think yours was either really but it was more of a generalization than his was as you seem to imply that most lefties are SJWs with “there don’t seem to be many in comparison to the amount of regressives”. He just countered your example of the extreme left with an example of the extreme right and then immediately followed that up by admitting it’s an extreme stance and not all righties are that way.

You’re wrong here.

[Wicker]

This is the quote of his that is a generalization:

it’s the left side who created the SJW shit storm

does imply that homophobia, and zealotry is a non leftist trait.

No, it implies there are fewer of them on the left. Hence the word “FEW”. Specifically, I explicitly stated that I see few of them on the left. And that’s a fact, I personally see few of something. I never made any broad statement, meaning it can’t be a generalization, by definition.

I already went over the wording issue, you can keep accusing me, and making baseless assumptions that i maliciously edited your wording to suit my argument, but all it does is show your desperation to get away from the original argument.

You haven’t addressed what you’ve done, you’re only denying it while offering no counter arguments. What you’ve said here was already refuted.

Are you trolling? Do i really need to explain that i directly quoted what you said several times. Using the word generally did not in anyway change the meaning or implications of your statement.

This as well, this was already refuted in my previous post, you have nothing new to say. The fact is, the version of my quote you argued agasint had a completely different meaning from my original. But go ahead and deny it again, while offering nothing at all to help refute this, go on. Just a denial. Denials don’t work when everyone can see what you’ve written, I don’t see what you’re trying to accomplish when anyone can simply go and see.

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:22, topic:28131”]
My words not yours bud, i never claimed those were your exact words, nor did i fucking edit your damned quote. If you saw “few” homophobes and zealots on the left, then you generally wouldn’t see them, would you?[/quote]

And right under that you said “how is this not the epitome of a generalization?”, of course, you had to leave that part outXD. You made an argument based on your extremely incorrect “interpretation”. What you said totally altered the meaning of my quote, then you made an argument based on the altered quote, not the original, this is the logical fallacy known as a straw man. Yet another definition you won’t accept.

I’ve already explained this, you already understand it, you’ve yet to refute it. Myself generally not seeing something wouldn’t matter, as a generalization relies on this being a broad statement about a group, this isn’t even true, as I do in fact see them, simply in fewer numbers. I “generally” see them everywhere, all that changes are how many. What I see is not a broad statement, you’re incapable of addressing this. Unless you’re saying I’m god, and therefore what I personally see is inherently a broad statement. That would be a stretch, even for you.

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:22, topic:28131”]
No I’m debating with you weather or not your statement was a generalization, you linked the dictionary definition, then proceeded to ignore it. The context in which you posted is a generalization, period, end of. If you cannot see that you’re lost.[/quote]

The context in which I said I see few. That I personally see few, meaning I am not making a broad statement whatsoever? Your entire argument replies on myself having made a broad statement. But sadly for you, I did not, I only spoke from my experience, and never made a claim about an entire group. Again, unless you’re saying I’m omniscient, you can’t say I made a broad statement, which is a very important part of the definition.

All you’d have to do to prove this is quote the definition, then point to each section and explain why my quote corresponds to that section. That’s it, but you can’t. You simply can not do it, it’s impossible for you. Please, don’t reply unless you’re going to prove me wrong on this, and do what I just suggested-______- Open your post with it.

[McWonderBeast]

This thread blows beginning to end. keep thinking im in the cave (probably where this crap belongs).

A small trickle of SJW B.S. won’t change anything OP’s concerns are unfounded.

@Wicker @SirWarriant struggles with the concept of explicit and implicit, intention or ignorance I have never determined.

Your beating a dead horse or just being masterly trolled.

Can we give this thread some chemo its cancer.

[Wicker]

He could be trolling, but honestly, people sometimes just can’t accept that they were wrong.

Just like the time I insisted I was right to watch two girls one cup, it was a good decision I assure you.

P.S, why is it stuck in my head that you’re a moderator? Am I just making that up from nothing?

[Blacksmith]

Yes, this thread is running like dead horse…