"Your post is fascist, and your views are mindless, based on an unthinking ideology which has, at its core, the exploitation of the innocent for your own personal gain."
The above sentence is addressing your post, your views and your ideology, in the same way you claim he was addressing my "post" and my "views". (and my ideology).
It is a painfully transparent way to call you "fascist", "mindless", "unthinking", "exploitative" and "evil".
If he were actually addressing my points, he could rebut them. To rebut them, requires several elements. First he has to honestly accept what I'm saying-- thus knocking down a strawman is not actually addressing a point, and thus not rebutting it. Second he has to bring facts, logic or reason to show why the point is in error. Simply calling the point names (as you claim he is doing) is not actually rebuttal. He didn't respond to my point at all, he misrepresented it characterize me and then characterized me, while pretending not to.
I saw thru it. It seems silly that you'd think that, having seen thru it, I would suddenly think otherwise. I think the motivation of your response is also that you disagree with me, but rather than rebut my points, you're jumping into the flay because he made it personal.
Nothing convinces me of the correctness of my perspective like my opponents fear of it.
The above sentence is addressing your post, your views and your ideology, in the same way you claim he was addressing my "post" and my "views". (and my ideology).
It is a painfully transparent way to call you "fascist", "mindless", "unthinking", "exploitative" and "evil".
If he were actually addressing my points, he could rebut them. To rebut them, requires several elements. First he has to honestly accept what I'm saying-- thus knocking down a strawman is not actually addressing a point, and thus not rebutting it. Second he has to bring facts, logic or reason to show why the point is in error. Simply calling the point names (as you claim he is doing) is not actually rebuttal. He didn't respond to my point at all, he misrepresented it characterize me and then characterized me, while pretending not to.
I saw thru it. It seems silly that you'd think that, having seen thru it, I would suddenly think otherwise. I think the motivation of your response is also that you disagree with me, but rather than rebut my points, you're jumping into the flay because he made it personal.
Nothing convinces me of the correctness of my perspective like my opponents fear of it.