The most current loss of my faith in humanity

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm not preparing an academic paper. This is an online forum: it's a waste of time and effort to pay attention to every word usage.

Either way you're arguing a point in a forum for serious discussion in the form of vague, unsubstantiated, hurtful accusations towards millions of people without the slimmest of objective backing.

[PresidentEden]

No, it only adds fuel to the now-recognized (at least in this thread) conclusion that you're a pompous jerk. You've never been in her situation, as evidenced by your silence on the matter, but of course you feel completely justified in judging feelings which, by definition, aren't chosen, feelings you've never experienced because you've never been in the position to experience them. You have no idea what my "moral values" even are, yet you're complacent to judge that they're wrong because I'm a Southerner that has empathy for victims of crime?

Take a step out of that ivory tower and live a little in the real world, kid. Your posts reek of the kind of arrogant contempt for humanity and rancid bigotry that's reserved exclusively for those too privileged to understand anything other than their own way of seeing things. It's pretty sad.

[Chiki]

Either way you're arguing a point in a forum for serious discussion in the form of vague, unsubstantiated, hurtful accusations towards millions of people without the slimmest of objective backing.

Sure, let me provide evidence.

70% of Texans support the death penalty and half of them strongly support it. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-polls-and-studies

100% of executions happened in the South in 4 months of 2008. Note that juries are involved in sentencing criminals, so this is related to personal opinion. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-100-south

Note that I think most Americans have objectionable values in terms of death. My university in the north celebrated bin Laden's death, which I found objectionable, for example. But it's just pure scientific fact that the South is worse, and nothing you can argue will negate that fact. Southern states generally vary around 10-20% in terms of opinion and completely in terms of practice.

Another example. Black people are superior to white people physically. You can accuse me of discrimination, but some facts are true regardless of them being offensive. It's your prerogative if you choose to find facts offensive.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150089/support-death-penalty-falls-year-low.aspx Southerners, Midwesterners and Republicans are most likely to support capital punishment.

Eden, your post is just ad hominem so I'm going to have to ignore it.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Olwen

[Constable Reggie]

61% in the South support capital punishment compared to 57% in the east and 58% in the west. Damn, that's a huge difference.

Fuckin' men have objectional moral values. 64% of them support capital punishment while only 57% of women support it. Men and their awfully questionable moral values, damn them.

Oh and don't call me sexist either because I have facts behind my claims.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[PresidentEden]

It is not ad hominem, so I'm going to take it as an acceptance of defeat. Funny that you're willing to ad hominem to high heaven about Southerners but won't take what you (falsely) perceive to be ad hominem in response. So on top of your bigotry and arrogance you're also a hypocrite, lovely.

Your entire argument is stupid anyway. The woman didn't call for the capture and death of the murderer, she said she wished he would be killed for it. The former, which you're falsely trying to ascribe to her, is a call for the death penalty, which I agree is wrong, just to disprove your inane "Southerners are backwards" nonsense again. The latter is an expression of her feelings of anger over her son being killed. Since you clearly have no experience with that, you should probably shut up and stop judging her over it.

[Rehab]

Do Southerners that don't agree with the Southern majority opinion have any place in your argument? And if "bad/corrupt moral values" doesn't mean bad person, where do your definitions of the two begin and end?

[Chiki]

61% in the South support capital punishment compared to 57% in the east and 58% in the west. Damn, that's a huge difference.

Fuckin' men have objectional moral values. 64% of them support capital punishment while only 57% of women support it. Men and their awfully questionable moral values, damn them.

Oh and don't call me sexist either because I have facts behind my claims.

The issue with that survey is the question. Asking if death penalty is appropriate for murder isn't the same as supporting death penalty in general. There are other studies which demonstrate that difference.

I would agree that men are significantly worse, but I wouldn't say that's sexist. It just is fact, just like blacks being better than whites at sports.

It is not ad hominem, so I'm going to take it as an acceptance of defeat. Funny that you're willing to ad hominem to high heaven about Southerners but won't take what you (falsely) perceive to be ad hominem in response. So on top of your bigotry and arrogance you're also a hypocrite, lovely.

Your entire argument is stupid anyway. The woman didn't call for the capture and death of the murderer, she said she wished he would be killed for it. The former, which you're falsely trying to ascribe to her, is a call for the death penalty, which I agree is wrong, just to disprove your inane "Southerners are backwards" nonsense again. The latter is an expression of her feelings of anger over her son being killed. Since you clearly have no experience with that, you should probably shut up and stop judging her over it.

Lol calling me a jerk isn't ad hominem? And I'm not "insulting" Southerners. Claiming that Southerners support the death penalty moreso than Northerners isn't ad hominem. It's fact. You choose to find a fact offensive. But to claim that calling me a jerk isn't ad hominem is absolutely hilarious. That's the textbook definition of it.

I don't have to have experience in something to understand that it's wrong. You agree that the death penalty is wrong, but you don't need to be in the shoes of the victims to claim that, do you?

Do Southerners that don't agree with the Southern majority opinion have any place in your argument? And if "bad/corrupt moral values" doesn't mean bad person, where do your definitions of the two begin and end?

I did say most.

So, I'd say that bad moral values are things like wanting people's death, being against gay marriage, etc. But those people who I would think have bad moral values don't go around killing people. So a bad person would be due to external rather than internal reasons. Those people with bad moral values can still be a benefit to society, and can indeed be good people.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Olwen

[PresidentEden]

Lol calling me a jerk isn't ad hominem? And I'm not "insulting" Southerners. Claiming that Southerners support the death penalty moreso than Northerners isn't ad hominem. It's fact. You choose to find a fact offensive.

Southerners really have corrupt moral values. She's no better than the shooter.

Of course she means it. Doesn't "a life for a life" sound familiar to you? It's the same kind of reasoning all Southerners have. By that logic we should be raping rapists.

Because that's what most people in the South think, even when their children haven't been shot in the face. The probability that she's dead serious is more likely than the probability that she'll regret saying those things.

Are we done with your inane pretenses? Yes? Moving on. Calling a jerk a jerk isn't ad hominem, by your own logic -- why are you "choosing to find a fact offensive," hmm?

I don't have to have experience in something to understand that it's wrong. You agree that the death penalty is wrong, but you don't need to be in the shoes of the victims to claim that, do you?

Of course not, but we're discussing a feeling, not a policy. I covered this already, which you chose to ignore.

[Chiki]

Yes, I said she is no better than the shooter due to her campaigning for the death of someone. I never said Southerners as a group are as bad as the shooter, though. I think you're choosing to get emotional and misinterpret my argument. I don't think Southerners are bad people, okay? All I am claiming is that Southerners support the death penalty more so.

I explained this in an earlier post when I talked about external vs. internal actions. External actions, like her campaigning for the shooter's death, are what makes her bad. On the other hand, internal actions do not make someone bad. I was not claiming Southerners are bad people.

Of course not, but we're discussing a feeling, not a policy. I covered this already, which you chose to ignore.

.

Do policy drafters need to be in the shoes of the victims? I don't think so.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Olwen

[Constable Reggie]

The issue with that survey is the question. Asking if death penalty is appropriate for murder isn't the same as supporting death penalty in general. There are other studies which demonstrate that difference.

So when I use the poll to substantiate my claim, there's a problem with the survey, but when you do, it's totally acceptable to use it generalize Repubs, midwesterners, and southerners as most likely to support capital punishment?

Edited March 26, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Chiki]

So when I use the poll to substantiate my claim, there's a problem with the survey, but it's totally acceptable to use it generalize Repubs, midwesterners, and southerners as most likely to support capital punishment?

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the only study I used.

[Constable Reggie]

It's the one you used to generalize specifically Midwesterners, Southerners, and Repubs as most likely to support capital punishment. Your other link doesn't speak of those generalized groups and any manner, and your second link is such a horrendously disgusting cherry pick that it isn't worth recognition.

[PresidentEden]

Yes, I said she is no better than the shooter due to her campaigning for the death of someone. I never said Southerners as a group are as bad as the shooter, though. I think you're choosing to get emotional and misinterpret my argument. I don't think Southerners are bad people, okay? All I am claiming is that Southerners support the death penalty more so.

Your intellectual honesty is pretty disturbing. As has been made clear, repeatedly, she did not campaign for the death of someone. You are making this shit up to support your incredibly stupid point. You did repeatedly assert that Southerners were corrupt and morally inferior and backwards. Stop dancing around with the fucking semantics and own what you said, for Christ's sake.

Do policy drafters need to be in the shoes of the victims? I don't think so.

She did not advocate for a policy. She said she wanted the shooter dead. That is an expression of feeling, not a policy request. This is the last time this will be covered. You are willfully misrepresenting what she said to push your own absurd victim-shaming agenda. You're being completely intellectually dishonest throughout this whole discussion. Just own up to it, admit you were wrong about the mother's intentions and to say what you said about Southerners (or at least the way you said it, if nothing else) and let this nonsense end, because you're not convincing anyone by blatantly doing an about-face and pretending you meant what you're saying now all along. It's immature and insulting to the intelligence of everyone else viewing this thread.

[Chiki]

It's the one you used to generalize specifically Midwesterners, Southerners, and Repubs as most likely to support capital punishment. Your other link doesn't speak of those generalized groups and any manner, and your second link is such a horrendously disgusting cherry pick that it isn't worth recognition.

Another strawman. Where do you get that idea? I wasn't generalizing them: all I was saying was what the study found, as an impartial journalist would.

Are you honestly denying that the South doesn't execute more criminals? That's absolutely the most ignorant claim I've heard on this thread.

http://www.deathpena...ution-list-2012

http://www.deathpena...ution-list-2011

It's almost all Southern states.

As has been made clear, repeatedly, she did not campaign for the death of someone. You are making this shit up to support your incredibly stupid point.

Telling journalists she wants him to die? How am I making that up? Sure, she isn't literally running for a campaign with a vice president to get him killed, but you know what I mean. She's very comfortable with the fact that she wants him dead, and has no remorse for it, and is willing to tell the world that she wants him dead. That's what I find wrong.

You did repeatedly assert that Southerners were corrupt and morally inferior and backwards. Stop dancing around with the fucking semantics and own what you said, for Christ's sake.

Corrupt? When?

Morally inferior? Inferior to what? When did I say that?

Backwards? I never said that.

All I did say was that I find their moral values bad--my personal opinion. That's all. Another strawman.

She did not advocate for a policy. She said she wanted the shooter dead.

Third strawman. I didn't say she was a policy drafter. I was asking a general question.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Olwen

[PresidentEden]

Telling journalists she wants him to die? How am I making that up? Sure, she isn't literally running for a campaign with a vice president to get him killed, but you know what I mean. She's very comfortable with the fact that she wants him dead, and has no remorse for it, and is willing to tell the world that she wants him dead. That's what I find wrong.

Look kid, I know what you find wrong. We've been over this a dozen times and you're probably the only person in the thread who still doesn't get it. Wanting someone dead, even telling people you want someone dead, is NOT the same thing as advocating for that person's death. I can want one of the big mansion homes on the lakes near my university, and even express that much, without advocating its seizure from its rightful owners. All she expressed is a feeling, which is not something a person consciously chooses. (no, you don't, before it comes up, you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise) If your moral system is to condemn feelings as wrong and relegate others to moral inferiority for something they do not choose to do, your system is fucked up and you need to revise it, bottom line.

All I did say was that I find their moral values bad--my personal opinion. That's all. Another strawman.

First of all, learn what a "straw man" is, your use of the term in your last post clearly belies ignorance of its meaning. Second, and coming off of that first point, I explicitly quoted you saying the things I just listed. That is definitionally not a straw man and makes you look absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Third strawman. I didn't say she was a policy drafter. I was asking a general question.

No you weren't, you were issuing bigoted statements about Southerners and you're failing hilariously to backtrack on that now that everyone here has repeatedly called you out on your shit. What are you even trying to achieve right now? Just own up to your multiple mistakes in this thread and call it a day, 'cause you're not convincing anyone of anything except negative impressions of you right now.

[Chiki]

]Wanting someone dead, even telling people you want someone dead, is NOT the same thing as advocating for that person's death.[/b]

It definitely is. Her extreme feelings on the media are likely to influence others' opinions, and the jury's opinion.

On the flip side, if she hadn't cared much about her son's death (you might think this is unrealistic, but an extreme example is worth considering regardless to test our understanding of situations), I don't think the jury would be as determined to "serve justice." What she does, I think, is add fuel to the fire and her expressing her opinion makes it more likely that the shooter will unfairly die.

Secondly, it's quite presumptuous of you to call me "kid" and is itself ad hominem, as you are implying that I am somehow less mature than you.

First of all, learn what a "straw man" is, your use of the term in your last post clearly belies ignorance of its meaning. Second, and coming off of that first point, I explicitly quoted you saying the things I just listed. That is definitionally not a straw man and makes you look absolutely fucking ridiculous.

A strawman is when you misinterpret my argument. That's all you've ever been doing--misrepresenting my argument and putting words in my mouth.

In none of those things I call Southerners corrupt, inferior or backwards. My quotes indicate none of them.

[Constable Reggie]

Another strawman. Where do you get that idea? I wasn't generalizing them: all I was saying was what the study found, as an impartial journalist would.

Are you honestly denying that the South doesn't execute more criminals? That's absolutely the most ignorant claim I've heard on this thread.

http://www.deathpena...ution-list-2012

http://www.deathpena...ution-list-2011

It's almost all Southern states.

I'm not denying any of the sort.

I'm arguing that your links hardly support your claim that southerners somehow have objectively worse moral values, and when I pointed out the minimal difference in support for capital punishment, you hypocritically handwave it off. The fact that most executions occur in the south does not disprove the fact that support for the death penalty is roughly the same all around the country, the opposite of which you're trying to argue.

Really, you should stop trying to rationalize your claim because you're just digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Chiki]

I'm not denying any of the sort.

I'm arguing that your links hardly support your claim that southerners somehow have objectively worse moral values, and when I pointed out the minimal difference in support for capital punishment, you hypocritically handwave it off. The fact that most executions occur in the south does not disprove the fact that support for the death penalty is roughly the same all around the country, the opposite of which you're trying to argue.

Really, you should stop trying to rationalize your claim because you're just digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

If the survey asked if people liked owning pets during the summer, would you be able to make a generalization and say that people like owning pets all year round?

The example illustrates the difference between the question the Gallup poll answers and the question I want answered. I can give you plenty more studies to show the difference, if you wish.

[PresidentEden]

It definitely is. Her extreme feelings on the media are likely to influence others' opinions, and the jury's opinion.

On the flip side, if she hadn't cared much about her son's death (you might think this is unrealistic, but an extreme example is worth considering regardless to test our understanding of situations), I don't think the jury would be as determined to "serve justice." What she does, I think, is add fuel to the fire and her expressing her opinion makes it more likely that the shooter will unfairly die.

You didn't even bother to refute my analogous example, so I'm tempted just to leave this because I already showed how your argument is logically inconsistent, but I'll go ahead and get this too. The jury is selected among people who have not heard the case. Check out the voir dire process for more info. The jurors are specifically selected to avoid the very pretrial bias you're talking about, so this specific objection doesn't hold. Additionally the general argument doesn't hold as previously demonstrated.

Secondly, it's quite presumptuous of you to call me "kid" and is itself ad hominem, as you are implying that I am somehow less mature than you.

I ain't implying shit, dude, I'm outright telling you you're less mature than I am. Your pathetic string of responses has made that obvious. You're the one who is now resorting to point-blank denying quotes you explicitly said a couple of pages back. Out of curiosity though, is it more or less presumptuous of me to call you "kid" than it is for you to make inane blanket judgments about the corruptness of all Southerners based on your completely unsubstantiated biases? (Constable Reggie did a great job already showing how your alleged statistical backing is bogus, so yeah, your biases are unsubstantiated.)

A strawman is when you misinterpret my argument. That's all you've ever been doing--misrepresenting my argument and putting words in my mouth.

In none of those things I call Southerners corrupt, inferior or backwards. My quotes indicate none of them.

I seriously have no idea how to respond to this. Like, the only options here are literally one or more of the following:

(1) You have retrograde amnesia and forgot you said what I quoted.

(2) You have some kind of reading problem that prevents you from reading what I quoted from what you said.

(3) You're point-blank lying to me even though I've just showed you that you're lying, continuing to recite the same lie over and over in the hope that I just crack and believe it or something.

It's not even "I'm stretching it a bit and there's some wiggle room that I'm not being generous to give," I've literally quoted your own words directly back to you and you've denied saying them. If you can't even acknowledge the reality of your own posts then there really is nothing else to be said.

[Constable Reggie]

If the survey asked if people liked owning pets during the summer, would you be able to make a generalization and say that people like owning pets all year round?

The example illustrates the difference between the question the Gallup poll answers and the question I want answered. I can give you plenty more studies to show the difference, if you wish.

Then actually link a poll that actually shows the difference of opinion between US regions, because so far, all 3 links you've given so far do nothing to substantiate your claim.

edit:

Oh, by the way, executions are limited only to people who performed murders and/or crimes against the government (Kennedy v Louisiana), so good luck if you can actually find a poll that shows southerners support the death penalty for crimes likes treason much more than any other region does. If not, the only actual relevant statistic to your claim squarely contradicts it. Ironic that it was you who linked it, isn't it.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Chiki]

You didn't even bother to refute my analogous example, so I'm tempted just to leave this because I already showed how your argument is logically inconsistent, but I'll go ahead and get this too. The jury is selected among people who have not heard the case. Check out the voir dire process for more info. The jurors are specifically selected to avoid the very pretrial bias you're talking about, so this specific objection doesn't hold. Additionally the general argument doesn't hold as previously demonstrated.

1. Do you really think there are people who haven't heard about this case? Maybe we should get jury members from North Korea?

2. What you said is just false. "Voir dire" is simply questioning potential jury members, not selecting people who haven't heard the case.

3. Claiming that jury members aren't biased is incredibly naive. Voir dire simply doesn't work that well. Wikipedia says "A 2012 study from Duke University published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics investigated the effect of jury selection and racial composition on trial outcomes. The study found that black defendants (81%) are significantly more likely than whites (66%) to be convicted when there are no potential black jurors in the pool."

I'm outright telling you you're less mature than I am.

:p It's one thing to have bad reasoning and another thing to constantly insult the person you're debating with. You should be banned for flaming at this rate. Let me quote every single thing you've said to belittle me:

now-recognized (at least in this thread) conclusion that you're a pompous jerk

Take a step out of that ivory tower and live a little in the real world, kid. Your posts reek of the kind of arrogant contempt for humanity and rancid bigotry that's reserved exclusively for those too privileged to understand anything other than their own way of seeing things. It's pretty sad.

So on top of your bigotry and arrogance you're also a [hypocrite, lovely.

Your intellectual honesty is pretty disturbing.

Look kid, I know what you find wrong.

(1) You have retrograde amnesia and forgot you said what I quoted.

(2) You have some kind of reading problem that prevents you from reading what I quoted from what you said.

(3) You're point-blank lying to me even though I've just showed you that you're lying, continuing to recite the same lie over and over in the hope that I just crack and believe it or something.

Apart from that, you did little but talk about how stupid and inane my arguments were with barely anything to back it up. I've done nothing but consider your arguments and attempt to give rational replies to them. You really need to control your emotions and think rationally.

I've literally quoted your own words directly back to you and you've denied saying them

Sigh. You can't ad hominem "about Southerners." The definition of ad hominem is that you have to ignore your opponent's argument and personally insult them, and I am not arguing against the group called Southerners. I simply called them something.

Further, while I did call their moral values corrupt, I never said THEY were corrupt. I never said they were morally inferior to anything as I did not compare them to anyone else. And I also did not say they were backwards.

So yes, it's true I used the word corrupt, but only to refer to their values and not Southerners themselves. The other two are words I never even used, yet you strawman-ed them anyway.

Then actually link a poll that actually shows the difference of opinion between US regions, because so far, all 3 links you've given so far do nothing to substantiate your claim.

It's fair to be skeptical of studies I provide, so I'll go ahead and post more.

http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/crju/headlines/mccarney/MCNAIR%20final%20paper.pdf

Figure 2 on page 11 shows that in 2006 there was a 80% to 68% support in death penalty btw. white people in Southern and Northern states--I think this is the context my discussion about Southerners relates to the most anyway. It comes close in some years and varies a lot, but generally there is a significant difference after 1993.

The study also shows that only 18% of whites strongly oppose the death penalty. However, when asked the question in a racially charged manner, only 11% opposed the death penalty. Over 20% opposed it when the question was asked in the innocent way. In terms of favoring, 36% favored it when asked the normal way, 52% in the racial form, 35% in the innocent way. This survey took place in the South, as the survey was conducted by the University of Kentucky.

[Crimson Red]

responding to the initial post here:

don't worry, TC

I am losing faith in humanity on a daily basis

XP

[Constable Reggie]

It's interesting how you decide to pick the outlier to support your claim. Just two years before that and the difference between southern and non-southern support is .5%, so obviously the real difference is not nearly as high as 12%. The average of the difference in opinion from 2000 to 2006 is roughly 6% (the same as just 2004+2006), and it only goes lower the more previous years you include. The trend shows southern support slowly rising over the others, but it's still not substantial. This is in line with Gallup's poll that only 4% (or less) more southerners support capital punishment. The study of white vs black opinion is irrelevant to your original claim.

Now tell me, do you consider 4-6% higher opinion of capital punishment enough to berate specifically southerners for their opinion of it and not the rest of the United States? Because if you do, then I'm just going to laugh at all of your future posts in this thread.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Parrhesia]

Apparently the mother said "I just hope, you know, that the shooter dies. I mean, I had to watch my baby die and I want him to die. A life for a life."

Southerners really have corrupt moral values. She's no better than the shooter.

"Yeah, that guy who shot my baby in the face while I was helpless to stop him seemed like a pretty nice guy. I hope he has a long and prosperous life, maybe has grandkids someday."

I think that wanting someone who committed such an action to die is pretty bloody reasonable in her situation. Not even going to get into the whole Southerner thing.

[PresidentEden]

1. Do you really think there are people who haven't heard about this case? Maybe we should get jury members from North Korea?

You're missing the point... you said that the woman's words would lead to the shooter "unfairly dying." All we need are jurors who haven't heard her say that to eliminate the bias you're griping so much about. That's an entirely reasonable assumption.

2. What you said is just false. "Voir dire" is simply questioning potential jury members, not selecting people who haven't heard the case.

...right, so you don't know what the voir dire process is for. That's actually understandable, a lot of people don't, but they're not just asking questions for their own sake, they're asking questions specifically related to the jurors' pretrial understanding of the case specifically to eliminate the bias you're griping about.

3. Claiming that jury members aren't biased is incredibly naive. Voir dire simply doesn't work that well. Wikipedia says "A 2012 study from Duke University published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics investigated the effect of jury selection and racial composition on trial outcomes. The study found that black defendants (81%) are significantly more likely than whites (66%) to be convicted when there are no potential black jurors in the pool."

I didn't say that. You're making a general statement about the voir dire process without accounting for the specific relevant application, namely "Can it screen out people who heard the woman say she wanted the shooter dead"? The answer is pretty clearly "yes," so the bias you're talking about isn't a problem.

Which means your entire complaint about the woman airing her grievances boils down to "I didn't like it." Which is fine, but it's a pretty poor way to judge someone's moral worth, let alone an entire culture within the US.

It's one thing to have bad reasoning and another thing to constantly insult the person you're debating with. You should be banned for flaming at this rate. Let me quote every single thing you've said to belittle me:

I know what I've said. You started the belittling with your blatantly bigoted comments about Southerners. I attempted to address you on a respectable level despite this disrespect and wasn't reciprocated. I justified every single instance of this "belittling" of you by citing specific behaviors on your part that demonstrated the criticisms I lodged. I'll go through them again for sake of completion.

1. If you're going to sit there and treat a grieving victim of a crime as morally inferior for feeling angry about the coldblooded murder of her son, and then judge an entire culture within the US based off of aforesaid judgment, then yes, you are in fact a pompous jerk, and you are in fact a bigot. This also incorporates the "arrogant" comment which was simply a restatement of the "pompous" comment I made before.

2. You've got the "intellectual honesty" barb backwards. I wasn't praising your intellectual honesty, I was disturbed at the complete lack of it. By continuing to assert that you did not say certain things (Southerners are corrupt, and think we should rape rapists, et al), even though they were clearly stated, on the pretense that you didn't actually say them and that you really meant essentially the exact same thing stated slightly differently, you are displaying a lack of intellectual honesty.

3. When I started calling you on your bigoted insults against Southerners, you retorted by appealing to the ad hominem fallacy, stating that it was improper of me to call you out on your insults. I did so in a way which was insulting, yes, but also factually true, as I'm demonstrating (again) now. You just got through saying that you "couldn't help it" if I or anyone else found the truth insulting. The hypocrisy should be pretty glaring.

4. Yes, I've called you a kid, repeatedly. It's because you're acting like one. I'm sincerely sorry that you lack the self-awareness to notice this, but there's a reason why I've been this harsh for this long without anyone in the thread (which has been pretty well-watched) coming to your defense. It's because every single criticism I'm levied here has been true. Don't you think if this were some random jackass on the Internet flaming you that someone would have come to your defense by now?

5. Those last three options were specifically posed in response to you flat-out denying that you said things I quoted to you. That wasn't actually meant to be insulting, it's simply a statement of fact... if you were to deny what you explicitly said, point-blank, then logically you'd either have to have forgotten what was said, misread what you said, or be lying. If I missed an option feel free to fill me in.

Apart from that, you did little but talk about how stupid and inane my arguments were with barely anything to back it up. I've done nothing but consider your arguments and attempt to give rational replies to them. You really need to control your emotions and think rationally.

Oh please. I've responded to every single argument you've made. You've dropped half of my responses if not more, presumably because you couldn't actually muster a coherent response to them. We spent what felt like a dozen or so go-rounds with the same 3-4 points because I'd reply to them and you'd ignore them to talk about the same thing. As noted previously, you have zero people coming to your defense. If I were just some irrational idiot flaming you someone would have shown up. I am responding to your points logically, you're just displaying this abject refusal to consider that you might be wrong about anything you've said (proven by the fact that you still have not retracted anything you've said despite backtracking for several hours now).

Sigh. You can't ad hominem "about Southerners." The definition of ad hominem is that you have to ignore your opponent's argument and personally insult them, and I am not arguing against the group called Southerners. I simply called them something.

...seriously? You insulted all Southerners, then cried foul when someone called you on your shit. That's the definition of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Thanks for proving the point.

That you keep trying to support your bigoted views by cherry-picking surveys off of the first couple of pages of Google when the data obviously doesn't back your trend (as the good Constable already demonstrated earlier) is just further proof of what I've been saying all along here. You're a bigot -- that's a fact, if it's insulting, too damn bad -- and you lack either the humility or self-awareness (or maybe both) to recognize that you're horribly, egregiously mistaken on basically everything you've said. Your completely tone-deaf condemnations of a grieving woman for expressing anger at the thug who killed her infant son -- after tacitly acknowledging you've never come close to being in that situation yourself -- betrays a complete lack of capacity or desire for empathy with other people and a preference for tearing others down to bolster your own self-righteous ego. Your comments throughout this thread, whether in reference to me specifically, to the woman in question, or to Southerners at large, have been a disgrace to yourself and to the Serenes Forest community, and if you had any sense of shame you would bow your head, apologize, and exit the thread posthaste. I won't hold my breath, but this will be my last post directed to you in the thread, and I would encourage the others to do likewise.

(N.B. to the moderators and anyone else viewing -- while I recognize my tone has been strong throughout this argument, I believe that my various criticisms of Olwen's character have been justified by his actions in the thread. If I am mistaken in this belief, I will accept whatever sanction is to be placed for my overstep, and I apologize for crossing the line. I feel, as you might understand, rather strongly about bigotry, especially bigotry against myself and people like me, but I feel I've nonetheless been fair enough to try to engage rationally and level-headedly with a poster whose bigotry made both impossible. I apologize if I've been overzealous in pursuing this argument.)