Exactly. I think I even said to him that he could very well just be some guy who refinishes or repairs/replaces doors for a living. Or any one of a thousand other different possibilities. His pathetic little pictures prove absolutely zip.
And you're also right about not needing to make up shit like that.
C'MON MAN!!!!
Sailor (08-16-2018)
"JUST DO IT....." HE DID. I suppose all brits are smart because they talk like they have a mouth full of shit. In comparison, SJWs are smart because they have been "indoctrinated" by propagandized personal opinion instead of instructed in the objective realities of life? That's why a SOCIAL PROF averages 15 more a year than do those who dedicate their lives to the constants of fundamental education such as Math, Science, and the articulative skills of the earth's languages.
This is an example of what the world needs more of...….the subjective study of the human condition..i.e., psychology of the mind, applied to the social engineering of history actual. Yep...the world needs more SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS. AKA....SNOWFLAKES demanding an elite status because they are instructed in the art of KNOWING MORE than others (according to their own self professed skills).
My point is that when someone on an anonymous internet message board starts talking about their personal wealth or success, to be immediately suspicious of it because they know there's no way to verify if it's true, and they also know they face no penalties or punishments for lying, even if they're caught.
These people live on a lack of accountability; it's how most of them make their shitty arguments. When faced with data showing, for instance, real wages for most Americans declined, the Conservatives will say "well, I'm more successful and my income is higher" while offering no proof of those claims. Then when asked for proof, they bristle and troll and flame. It's a pretty recognizable pattern if you see it enough, and since this isn't my first rodeo on anonymous message boards, the tell-tale signs are pretty clear and my bullshit detector is finely tuned to it.
It's why I absolutely avoid invoking personal circumstances as the basis of my argument. I know there's no way to prove a claim made about myself here that I'd be comfortable with, so I just refrain from the practice altogether. When someone's argument ultimately comes down to a personal anecdote, which so many Conservative arguments do, I'm reminded of Julie Boonstra, Ashley Todd, and Sam Wurzelbacher...all three were Conservative poseurs who thought they could lie about themselves and be treated as victims. Their arguments and basis of their victim claims were imagined personal anecdotes...in the case of Boonstra, it was her anecdotally saying her insurance costs increased because of Obamacare (they didn't; they went down instead). In the case of Todd, it was her anecdotally claiming a black man saw her bumper sticker, attacked her, and carved a B into her face (backwards, no less). In the case of Wurzelbacher, he pretended to be a guy named "Joe" who was "a plumber" and "owned a small business" and used all that fake personal history to try and entrap Obama into a quote that can be used as a cudgel out of context. The moral of the story is that Conservatives will stoop to no low to score a cheap political point, even if that low requires them to lie their asses off about themselves.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
I don't use personal anecdotes as the basis of any of my arguments.
In fact, I take pains to avoid invoking personal anecdotes because it wouldn't fair to many of you if I didn't. I don't think an anonymous internet message board is the place to talk about personal anecdotes in the context of a debate and am immediately suspicious of anyone who does.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
No they're not.
Most political debates can be settled with verifiable data from sources.
Rather than provide that verifiable data, you swap in unverifiable personal anecdotes.
So not only are you a lying sack of crap when you do that, but also lazy as fuck since you can't be expected to do the work of finding verifiable data to support your argument.
You're just copping out by leaning on anecdotes...and you won't even verify those anecdotes for fear of being doxxed.
So seriously...fuck that shit, and fuck your message board character's backstory and imaginary circumstances. Fuck your imagination. Fuck your ego. Fuck your narcissism. Fuck all of it in its dirty, stinking asshole.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Bookmarks