On Mar 6, 5:44*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 04:35:03 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:32*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

Another fine argument honed with logic by Eddyi.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Oh *little Eddy. *I was not defending anyone.

The hell you're not.

I don't use "logic" on people so detached from reality that they
defend misogynist jackasses who call all American women "sociopaths."
He's a sociopath himself, by definition. And you've defended him.

--
Ed Huntress

That is really funny. *Saying I am defending someone. *And when I
correct you , saying it again as if that makes it so.

Ok, Dan, I'm going to try to keep this short. Yes, by claiming that
this misogynistic twit deserves a "logical response," you're giving
him legitimacy he doesn't deserve -- cover for an atrocious collection
of insults against all women. Or maybe it's just American women that
he hates. Whatever. What he deserves is a kick in the pants, not a
"logical" response that treats him like a normal person.

You've snipped out his list of insults, probably because you think
they aren't relevant. More cover.

I still haven't seen a response from you about what kind of logical
argument you would prefer. Something like, "Oh, no, Marcus, not all
American women are deceitful, exploitative, remorseless and
pathologically egocentric predators. In fact, I personally know
several who are not all of those things."

Do you like that better?



Yes I have noticed that you do not always use logic. *If you did you
would realize that it is pointless to attack anyone detached from
reality,

Sometimes is just relieves stress. d8-)

They are not going to change, and name calling will not
help. *But you seem compelled to call people names anyway.

Only if they deserve it. If they use it on me, I'll throw it right
back. I didn't used to do that, but I learned that, in this place,
they'll just take it as license to keep it up.

In other cases, it depends on how I perceive the evil. And this one is
evil. This kind of outrageous woman-hating is pretty novel, too. It's
not something that you want to let fester. Off with its head.



Now if you can explain how I defended anyone. *Exactly what did I say
that was a defense?

See above.

Now, as for you: How vile does a post have to be before you'll slam
it? Like the man said, all it takes for evil to prevail is...and you
know the rest.

In another mood, I might have just used sarcasm. Like, "Hey, Marcus,
it sounds like you aren't getting any. Why don't you go hook up with a
prostitute and work out some of your emotional problems?"

But there's too much of a misogynistic mood in this NG already. I'd
had enough. Besides, maybe he's a slasher, and I wouldn't want to feel
responsible for another body washing up on Long Island.

I'd really like to know what kind of "logical" response you'd give to
Marcus the Misogynist. And while you're at it, as a pre-emptive strike
against illogic, maybe you'll tell us what logic you'd use on a
man/boy sex advocate, an anti-Asian bigot, and someone who makes fun
of Downs Syndrome sufferers.

Bigotry against blacks is already taken. It's getting boring at this
point.

--
Ed Huntress



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Keep claiming that I was defending Marcus. Someone might believe
you. And I did not say that he deserved a logical response. What I
said was you were acting like a 13 year old in calling names whereas
you usually use facts and logic. I was only responding to your
post, so
I cut out everything else so you would understand that I was
responding to what you said. Obviously that was wasted effort.

The only thing from Marcus that I have read in what was quoted in your
post. Life is too short to read every thing posted in RCM. I use
Google to read RCM and use the topic list display. So I just see
the topic and the name of the last person that posted in that topic.
Usually I would not read any of the posts in a topic " Rush Limbaugh
the slut ", but you were the last person that had posted. So I
thought ..........Hmmm Ed is responding to this topic, might be worth
reading. But obviously in this case , it was not worth reading.

Dan