Originally Posted by smooth

I'm not flustered, I just have better things to do than argue over things with someone who regularly ignores factual evidence, decides to use definitions for things either incorrectly or out of context, and then formulates faulty conclusions based on shaky or outright wrong premises.

If I tell you that the various -isms you're talking about are defined by who owns the means of productions, you'll answer with some bullshit about how you're using what you think is the common meaning of the word. Like the other thread, I pointed out that punitive damages and back pay have a legal definition that you're wrong on. You replied that you're using them in the way you understand them to mean, not a legal one. Well, tough shit, we're talking about a bill, and a supreme court case, so if you don't want to look like an idiot, it behooves you to use them in the legal sense regardless of your personal beliefs. I guess I should add that even the common use version of punitive means punishment, and paying someone for wages owed is not "punishment" by any stretch of reasonable imagination.


I mean, if you start a thread about regulations on bumpers for Ford Escorts, and then after we've been discussing the length, size, hardness of car bumpers and then on the 2nd page you post, well, I am using bumpers in the pool table bumper sense of the word... then the conversation has just taken an idiotic turn by any standards. I don't see how employing definitions correctly within the context being used can get anymore black and white than that, by the way.

If you think it's funny to annoy people with those kinds of discussions, I could actually see how that would be achieving at least something. But just because I say hmm, I think I'll go spend some time discussion incest taboos with other members of tfp it's not because I became flustered or agitated or even offended by what you wrote, I just think your posts are dumb and not really worth working through. There's always going to be a few people who don't catch on, but for the most part, you're not even going to have your little fun of annoying liberals if you don't at least make points that aren't above the level of ridiculousness.

I mean, there's really really intelligent people who subscribe to capitalism, understand what it means, know how far along its scale this economic system is on it, how the law works, strict adherents to conservative ideology, and on and on. But you don't really seem to be aware of how they understand the issues or even how to discuss them. How can you be gung-ho about something you don't even seem to get? Justices on the Supreme Court or writers for the Wall Street Journal who think about and discuss concerns from the same spectrum you claim to represent would be less likely to engage with you than I do. I don't know why you are proud of that irony.