The Liberal Zombie Manifesto
President Trump accurately identified the parties, on both sides, that were involved with violence. This was in the aftermath of the Charlottesville, VA, incident. The media, ignoring violent leftists, vilified the president for not carrying their narrative. In their eyes, only one side deserved this type of label and condemnation.
Violent leftists were also guilty for the violence. Many in the media; however, deliberately disregarded them or deemphasized their involvement and impact.
Shift to reporting on actual or assumed scandals and you’ll see a similar script. Liberal talking heads, and reporters, run fool’s errands regarding President Trump’s “scandals”. Yet, calls for pursuing actual scandals, by Democrats, are dismissed, swept under the rug, ignored, half baked, not seriously done, etc.
Enter the Liberal Zombie manifesto. I also got this from the old Protest Warrior forums. As with the previous article, I did some major editing and adjustments. I also updated this as the years went by.
The above photo is one of the protest signs that Protest Warrior used. One way they’d use this sign is to “blend in” with a group of people who were demanding gun control.
Without further ado…
I don’t pay for my mistakes or misfortunes.
1. If I…
a. Never went to college…
b. Was born into a poor family…
c. Am lazy…
d. Am unmotivated…
e. Wish to portray myself as a victim of any situation or series of events…
It’s other people’s responsibility to extricate me from my own mess.
2. Receiving more Social Security than I deserve is great because it rewards me for failing to put money away when I was younger.
3. Abortion is great because I should never have to deal with the consequences of my failure to use the following:
a. Birth control.
b. Common sense.
c. Keep the gates closed to irresponsible partners.
4. Government subsidized paid abortion is a right that I have for not being responsible in the first place.
NOTE: Please see Manifesto rules concerning my not having to pay for my mistakes. And society’s responsibility to get me out of the mess that I get myself into.
Affirmative Action is great.
1. If I’m a minority, I can get a job with substandard qualifications over someone that’s more qualified than me for the job. It’s not about who is qualified or not, it’s about giving me the job because I want it.
2. If I’m white, I’ll support affirmative action to the hilt if it doesn’t affect me.
The best thing about affirmative action is that it allows us to make protected groups think we’re helping them. Instead, we’re keeping them down by allowing them to take the path of least resistance. “Gain with no pain” is the rule. It’s easier to sway them with fake news this way.
3. Racism against whites is OK. Racism against minorities is horrible.
a. If whites kill a member of a protected group, that’s a hate crime. If a member of a protected group kills a white person, it’s simply a misunderstanding of the races.
b. If you fail to hire a member of a protected group, you’re a racist. If you fail to hire a white person, you’re doing your job in “hiring the most qualified person” for the task.
c. If you call a white person a thief, chances are he’s actually a thief. If you call an illegal immigrant a thief, you’re a racist, even if he’s a thief.
d. If a black kid is kidnapped and drugs are involved, only report the kidnapping. If a white kid is kidnapped and drugs are involved, report everything.
Gender discrimination only occurs when applied against a woman.
1. If a man hits his woman, it’s domestic violence. If a man didn’t hit his woman, but she claimed that he did, it’s still domestic violence.
2. If a woman hits her man, it’s domestic disturbance. Don’t worry, her hitting her man is her man’s fault. Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney. Numbers based on battered women’s shelters should be taken as gospel.
Cherry picked “evidence” is better than data obtained via the scientific method.
3. If a husband murders his wife in the heat of rage, prosecute him to the maximum extent of the law. If a wife murders her husband in the heat of rage, it’s due to self-defense. Even if he’d been long asleep when she had to “defend” herself…
4. If the father kills the kids in the heat of rage, prosecute him to the full extent of the law, he should have controlled his anger in the first place.
5. If the mother kills the kids because of post-partum depression, it’s because her husband subjected her to too much stress and she cracked. She wasn’t herself.
NOTE: If this starts to get confusing, remember… If a man does something wrong, he failed to exercise responsibility over his behavior. If a woman does something wrong, it’s because of some external extenuating circumstance “out of her control”. If a man is involved, it’s the man’s fault.
You can’t say I’m wrong here.
1. If you think I’m wrong, you’re just exposing your own hatred, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.
2. There should be no restrictions on behavior or restriction against consumption of certain substances. There should be no restrictions on censorship in free media.
3. Accepting a lifestyle only applies to lifestyles my friends and I accept. It’s okay to be intolerant of lifestyles that embrace conservatism, moderation, class, and modesty. I refuse to acknowledge the inherent hypocrisy in this.
4. If our views of what’s “right” and what’s “wrong” came from different upbringing… Then what’s “right” and “wrong” for me is different from what’s “right” and “wrong” for you.
5. There’s no universal rights or wrongs… There’s no absolute evil… My sense of what’s “right” and “wrong” always trumps yours.
Drugs are good. Smoking is bad. I’ll defend that to the death!
Censorship applies only when I want it to.
1. Say you give me a forum and an outlet. I subsequently make a donkey out of myself.
a. If you call attention to that fact, you’re infringing on my freedom of speech.
2. If you refuse to buy my albums or watch my movies because of my political rants, you’re infringing my freedom of speech.
3. If we deny you of a forum and an outlet, we’re not denying you your freedom of speech. We’re just silencing bigotry and hatred.
Abortion is good. The death penalty is bad. I’ll defend that to the death to!
I don’t like facts because they go against most of what I believe in.
1. If you destroy my drivel and tripe with the facts, you’re just expressing your opinion.
a. For the sake of not hurting anybody’s feelings, there’s no right or wrong when we debate. Facts are what my emotions say they are.
b. The empirical evidence you present against my drivel is just your opinion.
c. Facts are what my emotions say they are.
d. Being right is in the eye of the beholder.
e. If you refuse to see my emotions as fact, you’re narrow minded and stuck in a “black and white” mindset.
Changes in society should fit my tastes.
1. I’ve suffered a traumatic experience in my life and I have not gotten over it. Instead of changing myself and moving on, I’m going to change the world to fit my perception. It’s easier for me if the world did the hard work of changing to accommodate my habits and beliefs.
2. Change is good if it fits my perceptions. Evidence that this change is harmful should be dismissed as…
a. Conservatives’ refusal to be inclusive…
b. Right wing religious extremism…
c. Denying a group their rights…
d. Discrimination…
e. Refusing to share…
Corruption by liberals, whether moral or political, will be ignored.
1. If you call me out on my corruption, you’re a bigot consumed with hatred.
2. If I’m minority and you call me out on my corruption, you’re a racist.
3. If I’m a woman and you call me out on my corruption, I’ll accuse you of being misogynist.
4. If I’m Muslim and you call me out on my corruption, I’ll accuse you of Islamophobia.
5. If I’m gay, and you call me on me out on my corruption, I’ll accuse you of homophobia.
I hate guns… There shouldn’t be guns.
1. If nobody had guns, they’d be unable to stop me from stealing their property and rights. That’s my ultimate goal.
2. We need to think of the safety of the person that’s going to rob your house or rape your loved one. Robbers and rapists are people too.
Exception: Only the government, representatives of the government, and my security, shall have guns.
I attended some liberal arts school in a left-wing university and got a degree in Postmodern Feminist Studies or some such horse poop.
1. As a result of this useless degree, I consider myself a foreign policy, political, historical, economic, and crime expert. I know better than military veterans, policemen, and other residents of the real world.
a. I also know how to raise and educate your kids better than you do.
b. Let’s make this simple so that you’ll know what I am talking about.
Say I have a degree in basket weaving. Say you’re a fire fighter and we’re arguing about disaster operations dealing with fire. Say, in this argument, you’re wiping my rear end all over the floor. Even under those conditions, I’m right and you’re wrong.
My watching fire fighters (military, police, or other profession) in action on the news, or in the movies, has more weight over what those professionals experience firsthand. Even though I may never have access to the information they have access to.
Diversity is great only when we’re talking about having both genders, almost all races, most religions, and almost all ethnic groups being represented.
1. Diversity does not apply to those with conservative views, to Christians, and to white males.
a. Don’t ask why, because my explanations of this concept always tend to be circular in nature. So we’ll just skip to the end and I’ll call you a bigot, racist, narrow minded, xenophobe, misogynist, NAZI, etc., right now, to save time.
Or, I could be nice about it and just tell you that you’re wrong.
b. The absence of Christians, Republicans, white males, conservatives, etc. does not constitute a lack of diversity. Don’t ask about this, either you narrow-minded racist.
All religions-especially Christianity and Judaism-are bad.
1. Crazy Muslim radicals are the only exception to this rule.
2. “Separation of church and state” means “A churchless state.”
3. “Freedom of religion” means “Freedom from having to acknowledge the right to practice religion. It also means the freedom from having religious morals and values.”
4. Atheists that follow a moral code are lumped in with the religious people.
5. We don’t care for atheists that support religious rights for others, who are conservative, who are white, etc.
6. All mention of religion should be kept out of schools, even if it means revising the Declaration of Independence, fudging the facts about the first Thanksgiving, or suing the school if winter break is called Christmas Break.
I will not accept any historical-primary source evidence-that the Founding Fathers were Christians and embraced Christianity.
I’ll quote Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, etc. completely out of context to make my case against religion and against war.
Aggression is never good… It’s never okay to use force.
1. Instead of using force to defend yourself, concede immediately. I’ve no concept of honor or national pride.
2. I’d rather jeopardize my own family, economy, and security, in lieu of using force. It’s never okay to use force! Now, when my security is present, that’s a different story.
The military should be eliminated.
1. They’re all a bunch of brainwashed savages anyway who parrot what their bosses say.
2. They just joined for education benefits and for the money (after we severely cut their budget).
3. We totally support the troops, but not the military, its mission success, or its Commander in Chief-unless he is a Democrat.
What’s that? Pointing out indefensible contradictions in my ideology? Why you fascist narrow minded racist, misogynist, xenophobe, Islamophob! Did you have to point that out to me with one or more big, long, multi paragraphed posts when you could’ve said it with less?
I’ll never accept the fact that sometimes, people just get offended.
That’s life in my world. In my perfect world, nobody-except conservatives-would ever be offended.
I refuse to follow the rules of logic or rhetoric.
Proper debate rules do not apply to me. I can argue however I want; please see my rules on what constitutes fact.
I must win every argument even if I have to pull things out of my arse to do it!
1. You must cooperate with me by not pointing out the errors of my argument.
2. You must cooperate with me by using less words. Remember, less is more when you argue, more is more when it’s my turn.
3. You must cooperate with me by conceding to me without requiring me to do the same.
4. If I can’t win, I’ll resort to insults such as calling you a racist, anti-gay, right wing… By giving you a name that matches “Fantasy land” or any other false and derogatory descriptions.
I refuse to acknowledge the validity of an analogy or metaphor.
When you use them, I’ll make sarcastic remarks and/or give myself some omnipotent powers in dealing with the analogy.
Say we’re arguing about gun control. Then you use an analogy. You point out the fact that gun free zones, and other gun laws didn’t stop mass shooting. Then you ask me if criminals, who didn’t follow the current laws in the books, would all of a sudden follow these new laws. I’ll tell you that we’re not talking about psychology. I might talk about some cartoon character. I’ll get emotional with you. Or I’ll simply conduct the verbal equivalent of evasive maneuvers.
The best way to react when my statement has been disproved is for me to repeat myself.
1. You’ll eventually get tired and give up, which is my actual goal. If you don’t, I’ll simply call you names.
2. If you don’t fall for my ploy, I’ll accuse you of repeating yourself and ignore the fact that you’re doing so because I’m repeating myself.
a. You see, only I can repeat myself. You can’t.
Censoring conservative dialog is not censorship but preventing hate speech.
1. If you’re minority, and you’re debating as a conservative, you’ll be labeled as a sell out to your race, ethnic group, etc… Even if you use proper debate etiquette and follow the rules.
2. If you’re a woman that’s arguing as a conservative, you’ve sold out your gender.
3. If you’re a democrat that’s arguing as a conservative, you’ve sold out the Democratic Party.
4. If you’re a Republican arguing as a liberal, you’re arguing your conscience. You’re also a part of the center and the mainstream.
It’s OK to criticize the the United States, but not OK to criticize the UN or any other country that hates the US.
1. If you’re a foreigner and you bash your own country, you’re ashamed when you shouldn’t be.
2. If you’re American and you bash your own country, you’re giving good and honest criticism.
3. If you point other nation’s shortcomings out, you’re preaching hate.
4. If these nations bash the United States, they’re giving “legitimate” criticism.
Category: Liberals suck, Politics, Society
Don’t call them Leftists, call them what they are. Communist Agitators… As bad if not worst the the SA on Kristallnacht just with a communist leaning media its never reported that way.
The voices “on the street” that President Bush didn’t listen to, from a liberal protest:
Seems I have noticed all of the above just by living a long life. I never bothered to write it all down but I am thankful that some one did. I would add an index and a search box.
“Control F”.
Then, input a keyword. 
My head hurts after reading that.
You too?
Only two sexes? You misogynist closed-minded tool?
Good point, I’m going to add that in future editions of the above post. And speaking of the “sexual”, I saw a new term… “Ammosexual”. Apparently, ammosexual describes the supporters of the Second Amendment.
Yep, that’s us, besig. We have no argument, according to the liberal know-it-alls. We fetishize guns and ammo. It’s the tactic of those who can’t make a cogent argument.
Then that makes me an Ammosexual.
I CANNOT HELP IT, I was born that way!!!
I love this, I will print this out and have it framed and hung on my office wall!
This would be funny if it were not true.
Its the regressive agenda.
I also use “regressive”, as there is nothing “progressive” about the movement towards socialism.
I Myself prefer “proglodyte”.
With the way they are behaving, that could very well become the most common term to describe them.
“Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney.”
Actually that is baloney where it counts. The vast majority of women that are murdered, are murdered by men. The killer is most often in a domestic relationship, former relationship or a spurned one with the victim. The vast majority of men are killed by other men, the men that are murdered by women were nearly always in a domestic relationship of sorts.
So far as other acts of violence there is some evidence to say that women are often the aggressors, although not most often. This overlooks the severity of injury however. Injuries tend to be more severe when men are the aggressors, hence the murder rates. Not my numbers or a shelter check UCR.
The Old Maj: Actually that is baloney where it counts. Wrong! Your definition of “where it counts” misses the mark behind the statement that your addressing. The comment was that domestic violence was equally, or near equally perpetrated, by both genders. Whether that results in a death or not is irrelevant to the statement: “Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney.” The Old Maj: The vast majority of women that are murdered, are murdered by men. The killer is most often in a domestic relationship, former relationship or a spurned one with the victim. The vast majority of men are killed by other men, the men that are murdered by women were nearly always in a domestic relationship of sorts. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN] First, domestic violence involves any act, that the state defines, as domestic violence. It could range from throwing something at someone all the way to shooting someone. Which gender murders the other gender, or vice versa, is irrelevant when you attempt to use those numbers to dismiss the fact that domestic violence is equally, or near equally, likely to be caused by both genders. Second, raw data, that hasn’t been subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, point to half or 55%, of the cases that fit your argument. That doesn’t constitute a “vast” majority, as you point out above. Guess where a big chunk of that comes from? One of the groups that contributed to this large number also contributed to the number of deaths of other members of this group. The need for ANOVA and other forms of statistical tests is needed before you could run off with the “vast majority” baloney, or even point to this as a simple “man versus woman” issue to use against the overall statement regarding domestic violence. Guns were used in committing a good number of those murders as well. In order to separate the gun from the perpetrator from this instance, you have to bring this back to the original statement that you assumed was “baloney”. The Old Maj: So… Read more »
In all fairness to those of us who may have dealt with this sort of thing for literally many decades, we aren’t necessarily operating from a bias. We may simply have not kept up with more current data. I admit to getting a bit lazy in my old age – after relearning the same things multiple times I just don’t care as much as I used to care.
Be that as it may, I still want to see real numbers, but reserve the right to question it. My perspective may be wrong, or it may only be outdated rather than illogical/without basis. Give us old timers a bit to get our heads around the new info.
Accuracy is good. But so is acknowledging that things have changed radically in our lifetimes.
Yep, pretty much a proglodyte’s bible.
“The Old Maj: Actually that is baloney where it counts. Wrong! Your definition of “where it counts” misses the mark behind the statement that your addressing. The comment was that domestic violence was equally, or near equally perpetrated, by both genders. Whether that results in a death or not is irrelevant to the statement: “Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney.”” It is only irrelevant because you think it is meaningless and you have created a False Equivalency in your statements. It is a false equivalency that a woman making some vague threat to a man or running a key on his Camaro (both also domestic violence in most places) is the same as a man beating a woman to death. Lumping a wide variety of crimes in to single catch all phrase of crimes that range from mere violations to capital felonies ignores the real issue of actual violence. “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.” What da fuq dude? If it doesn’t come from an organization or a person where it does it come from? I’ll pray on it but I don’t think God will deliver on that one, but you never know. “Your argument indicates that you’re basing your argument on flawed data. A check on the methodology, and data, exposed holes in the sources that these individuals used to support their arguments against me in the past.” Uniform Crime Reporting data by it’s very definition is raw data. If you need an education on what it is or how it is collected check out Wikipedia. If it is flawed in some way please show it. You will make the Black Lives Matter people thrilled. “We, as a society, are not going to be able to effectively address domestic violence if we’re going to look at this in terms of “intensity” as opposed to “actual commission of domestic violence”. Regardless of the intensity, and pain, the fact of the matter is that domestic… Read more »
You were doing pretty good advancing your argument, Old Maj, right up to the point where you typed this, “If you need an education on what it is or how it is collected check out Wikipedia”. “Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation”. Anyone with posting privileges can edit anything on Wiki. As Wikipedia says on their website, “Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning that anyone can edit any unprotected page and improve articles immediately for all readers. You do not need to register to do this. Anyone who has edited is known as a “Wikipedian” and, no matter how trivial the edit may seem, can be proud that they have helped make Wikipedia what it is”.
Emphasis and italics added.
Yeah, but if it is right, it is still right.
Actually, the ability to edit for anyone who wants destroys the credibility of anything on Wiki.
Oh goodness. Here:
https://www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/abouttheucr.cfm
The Old Maj did not do a good job advancing an argument, and didn’t advance a good argument at any point in this debate. The Old Maj failed to advance a valid argument; instead, OM failed to understand my argument, choosing to advance a strawman argument instead.
The Old Maj: It is only irrelevant because you think it is meaningless and you have created a False Equivalency in your statements. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN] FALSE! It’s irrelevant, because I was arguing about domestic violence as defined by various state law, as well as defined in the dictionary. Nowhere was I arguing about murders as the sole form of domestic violence. In fact, I separated the two to help emphasize the fact that I was talking about a whole range of violent activities. The Old Maj: It is a false equivalency that a woman making some vague threat to a man or running a key on his Camaro (both also domestic violence in most places) is the same as a man beating a woman to death. Lumping a wide variety of crimes in to single catch all phrase of crimes that range from mere violations to capital felonies ignores the real issue of actual violence. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN] What I said: “1. If a man hits his woman, it’s domestic violence. If a man didn’t hit his woman, but she claimed that he did, it’s still domestic violence. “2. If a woman hits her man, it’s domestic disturbance. Don’t worry, her hitting her man is her man’s fault. Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney. Numbers based on battered women’s shelters should be taken as gospel. “Cherry picked ‘evidence’ is better than data obtained via the scientific method.” — thebesig Where, in any of those statements, do I argue that one beat the other to death? You advanced that part to make a strawman argument. Wrong on the “false equivalency”, when I said this: “First, domestic violence involves any act, that the state defines, as domestic violence. It could range from throwing something at someone all the way to shooting someone. Which gender murders the other gender, or vice versa, is irrelevant when you attempt to use those numbers to dismiss the fact that domestic violence is equally, or near equally, perpetrated by both genders.” — thebesig I was talking about… Read more »
Still waiting on the sourced data that shows women are the instigators 75% of the time in domestic violence situations. Bring it or go home. Raw sourced data not some weirded out data manipulation. Until then your assertions are still unsupported. I know it is tough but try to keep it under a thousand words, I’ll be headed to bed soon. Oh hell, make it a thousand words it should knock me right out. By the way, dialogue includes conversations that are fluid and wide ranging. Except in this case where the topic is pretty narrow. I didn’t make a straw man argument. I merely pointed out that when domestic violence is most severe the man is nearly always the aggressor. “Where it counts”. This is a different topic. Tough to figure it out but I thought you were smarter than that, my bad. I thought I made it clear up front but failed. Somehow you got all butt hurt and conflated in to something it isn’t. Next time I bring up a different topic I will put in there NEW TOPIC in all caps so you will be in the know. Lastly that 55% number you bring up is simply not true because you did not read what I wrote. What I wrote was: “The vast majority of women that are murdered, are murdered by men. The killer is most often in a domestic relationship, former relationship or a spurned one with the victim. The vast majority of men are killed by other men, the men that are murdered by women were nearly always in a domestic relationship of sorts.” 90% of all killers are men. So yes, the vast majority of killers of women are also men. The killer is most often in a relationship: Also true. You then turned that in to something it wasn’t. You must be really upset. I see you posted some more. Here: “False. What you’re seeing, when you access their reports, is the result of someone else’s analysis of the raw data. It’s also a database that contains unorganized data. The data… Read more »
I’m helping with the storm recovery efforts. I’ll be back to respond to this.
Don’t you wish that was my only response? BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA! 😈 😀 My next series of replies should give you a hint of how I’ll respond to your way or responding to me. I noticed that you demanded that I meet a specific word count. The way you reply guarantees that you’re going to be seeing longer than normal replies. You’ll find information on how YOU can cause my post lengths to decrease. Hint: You have to do something regarding your responses. In the meantime, you forgot to address these: you need to answer my questions first before you demand that I provide you with anything. So, without further ado: “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.” — thebesig And: 1. Is murder the ONLY form of domestic violence? YES [ ] NO [ ] 2. The quoted statement (from above), Definition of Domestic Violence, matches which one of our definitions? THEBESIG’S [ ] THE OLD MAJ’s [ ] Copy and paste these two questions, and options, to your reply. Place an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to add to support or clarify your option. We both know that the correct answer to both these questions destroys your argument; hence, your refusal to answer them. I knew that you would ignore these questions, as the opposition has consistently refused to answer yes/no questions like these, per the parameters that I set, across the 14 years I’ve asked questions like these. Your refusal to answer these questions speaks volumes about the lack of confidence that you have in your own argument. It also speaks volumes to the fact that you’re driven by stress, anger, and the need for control when engaging in argument. Your ignoring these questions is your attempt to “control” this argument’s progress and outcome. I have news for you. Others attempted the same thing, it didn’t work for them, it won’t work for you. I’m going to keep holding your feet to… Read more »
The Old Maj: Still waiting on the sourced data that shows women are the instigators 75% of the time in domestic violence situations. First, until you provide me with the data that I requested in my initial rebuttal to you, and the following questions, you have no leg to stand on demanding that I provide you with data. Also, I noticed that you failed to answer the questions that I asked you per the parameters that I set. In fact, nowhere in any of your replies did you address them. I initially asked you to provide me with sourced data. You failed to do so. None of the information that you provided me, and none of your sources, meet the standard of valid data where this argument is concerned. Until you address my demands first, and until you answer my questions per the parameters that I set, you have no leg to stand on demanding that I provide you with anything. The Old Maj: Bring it or go home. You first, I requested that you provide me with sourced data. You failed to do that. So, do as you preach, bring it or get your hind end to the play room and hang out with the kids. Having a real argument appears to be out of reach for you. I’m going nowhere, I’m staying here and constantly destroying your arguments. Your reactions, how you are replying, indicates someone that knows that he/she is losing control. You’re pulling straws as a result. I’m having too much fun holding your feet to the fire in this argument. I have no intention of going anywhere as long as you give me the incentive to keep dismantling you… And watching your reactions as a result. The Old Maj: Raw sourced data Which you continued to fail to provide “proving” the following statement “wrong”: “Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney.” What I wanted to see, before you made your demands that I provide raw data: “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology,… Read more »
The Old Maj: I’ll be headed to bed soon. I went to bed, and right to sleep, right after I sent you my last counter rebuttals. I didn’t even hover around the computer to wait for your reply. Understand that you don’t have psychological control over my actions… Like what I have on yours. More on that later. I’ve been debating with people, online, over the past 14 years. I do this as a hobby, more on this later. So, I went to bed knowing full well that this argument would continue the following day. In fact, as long as you reply, expect my counter reply . The Old Maj: Oh hell, make it a thousand words it should knock me right out. If by “knocking you right out”, you are insinuating that you would “fall asleep” reading my reply, then I’m calling bull… Just like with the rest of your argument. The anger, stress, and control issues that I am seeing in your replies suggest that you would not be “knocked out asleep”. The urge to “regain control” by providing a response would have been too great for you. But, the reality is that I knocked your argument out the first time that I replied to you. Then, I continued to knock your argument out. The Old Maj: By the way, dialogue includes conversations that are fluid and wide ranging. This isn’t a “dialogue”. I hold dialogues and discussions with people on topics that we agree on. You disagreed with something that I said, and used a keyword or two that guaranteed that this would become a debate. This is not a “discussion” or a “dialogue”. We are engaged in debate/disagreement. The Old Maj: Except in this case where the topic is pretty narrow. Actually, the topic is specific. I made a statement that you disagreed with. A statement that essentially said that either gender is likely to commit domestic violence. You disagreed with that, and moved the goalposts in order to have an argument. Excessive violence is just a red herring, and does nothing against the fact that… Read more »
The Old Maj: Next time I bring up a different topic I will put in there NEW TOPIC in all caps so you will be in the know. Irrelevant when your “new topic” is a strawman argument. Labeling it as “new topic”, in all caps, won’t change the fact that you’re dodging the actual argument. It’s like spray painting a cat’s used litter box with gold colored spray paint, and calling the entire thing a “heap of gold”. You’re stilling going to have something nasty that many still won’t want to deal with. The only way that I’d “agree” to something like this, regarding your “new topic”, is if your post was posted as a separate article, with its own thread. Thus, keeping your baloney argument off my thread, where one of the original topics was on the likelihood of both genders to commit domestic violence… NOT on the most violent acts of domestic violence. The Old Maj: Lastly that 55% number you bring up is simply not true because you did not read what I wrote. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound with this statement? I’m not surprised though, with each additional reply that you give, you’re increasingly driven by emotion. You’re doing the equivalent of slinging poo all over the place with the hopes that some of it “sticks”. You’re grasping at straws and slinging your fists into the air. Heck, your conduct could be described as doing the equivalent to doing a Mexican hat dance in a barrel of poop, splattering poop all over the place. 🙄 You claim that my number is “not true”. What was your justification? That I “didn’t” read what you wrote. No, you didn’t provide any substantive argument against that 55% number. It’s “wrong” because “I didn’t read” something. 🙄 REPEAT POST by The Old Maj, aka Non Compos Mentis: INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN What I wrote was: “The vast majority of women that are murdered, are murdered by men. The killer is most often in a domestic relationship, former relationship or a spurned one with the victim. The vast majority of… Read more »
The Old Maj: Mistakes happen, ok but mistakes happen with all data that has human input. Arguing that something is less valid due to human input you would have something without human error. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN] What I said: “Most men, that experience domestic violence, don’t report the incident. If these men don’t report the incident to the police, or to any other law enforcement, how is their data going to end up in the database? It isn’t. “Thus, the result is going to be based on what’s reported. This isn’t ‘scientific’.” — thebesig Hence what I meant by this: “Also, the accuracy of the data is going to depend on input.” — thebesig If you read what I said, with the intention of understanding what you’re reading, you would’ve made the connection between “input” and “what’s reported versus what’s not reported”. Your attempting to explain this away as “mistakes” or “human error” is nothing but a strawman argument. Nowhere, in this part of the reply, do you address the fact that an incident not being reported is not going to make it into the database. The Old Maj: Love to see it. What I would love to see is you answering the questions that I previously asked you per the parameters that I set: 1. Is murder the ONLY form of domestic violence? YES [ ] NO [ ] 2. The quoted statement (above), Definition of Domestic Violence matches which one of our definitions? THEBESIG’S [ ] THE OLD MAJ’s [ ] Copy and paste these two questions, and options, to your reply. Place an “X” in the box that represents your reply, and spare me any additional argument that you’d want to add to support or clarify your option. If your argument was valid, you’d easily be able to answer these questions. But you won’t because you know that the correct answers to these questions proves your entire argument, on this thread, wrong. The Old Maj: Until then it is what we have unless you have something better (but I already know you don’t or you would have… Read more »
The Old Maj: blah, blah, blah, numbers please. I asked you first: “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.” — thebesig And: 1. Is murder the ONLY form of domestic violence? YES [ ] NO [ ] 2. The quoted statement (from above), Definition of Domestic Violence, matches which one of our definitions? THEBESIG’S [ ] THE OLD MAJ’s [ ] Copy and paste these two questions, and options, to your reply. Place an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to add to support or clarify your option. Until you answer these questions, per the parameters that I set, you have no legs to stand on demanding that I provide you with any answers or numbers. Again: Show me what I wanted you to show me first, and answer my questions, then we’ll talk about what I could show you. Answer these! GO! The Old Maj: Help me out here. Want me to help you out? First, anger, stress, and the need for control, is clouding your ability to read my posts in a way that you would understand what I am actually arguing. So, what you need to do is read my posts multiple times before you reply. In fact, I would recommend taking 15-minute breaks after reading each batch. You would find that with each new reading, you would be less emotional/angry, and a little bit more rational. The more rational you are, the less confrontational you would have been in the first place, and the more you would’ve focused on where we have agreement and disagreement lay. This would’ve lead to you actually engaging in the “dialogue” or “discussion” or “conversation” that you think that we are engaged in but we are not. At this point of the argument, it’s too late for you to bring it around to a “dialog” or “discussion”. But, using multiple readings may lead to you providing relevant replies. Second, I recommend that you pull your… Read more »
The Old Maj: UCR not peer reviewed? Seriously? You are actually claiming to be an expert in the field? Hell, the website lists just a small number of peer reviews of the system. As with everything else that you’ve argued, you consistently prove that you have absolutely no clue about what you’re talking about. Maybe if you made the effort to understand English that even a 5th grader could understand, you wouldn’t have this problem and would know what I’m talking about. What I said, that you disagreed with: “With a peer reviewed study, I’ll have access to the literature that lead to the research question, the research questions, the methodology used to gather and analyze the information, the raw data, the statistical testing, etc.” — thebesig A scientific journal article is generally divided into a few sections: the abstract, introduction, initial argument/concept, previous literature (peer reviewed studies) used that lead to the research questions, hypotheses and research questions, methodology, results, testing and analysis, limitations and future directions, conclusion, and references. This captures the scientific method in a nutshell. Peer review comes in when other experts, in the discipline that the study was conducted in, review the study, the literature, the raw data, the analysis, then verify the data and verify that the researchers properly used the scientific method, etc. They vouch for the scientific validity of the study. The researchers, and reviewers, are generally people that hold doctorate degrees, and are referred to as “Doctor” instead of “Miss or Mister”. As with anything else, you’re pulling crap out of your arse with the “other people reviewed UCR” nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the results of scientific methods-based research is far more credible than a site that lists reports by police officers. It doesn’t matter if the system itself has been reviewed… it matters that the vast majority of your preferred reports aren’t done using the scientific method. The scientific method attempts to replicate the variables that exists in the real world. Police reports collectively are only going to reflect what’s reported to them, or what they… Read more »
Don’t worry, my rebuttals to you are almost as guaranteed as death and taxes. The only way you could escape my rebuttals is to outlive me. I’m almost 48. Do you feel lucky? In case you missed it, I have every intention of dismantling your replies… ad infinitum. Originally posted by Non Compos Mentis: REPEAT POINT Still no numbers to back your assertions. Shocked I am not. Going to be out and about all day, maybe tomorrow? Doubtful. REPEAT POINT First, I respond to you at time of my choosing. I read your replies this morning, and the follow-on reply later in the day. I’m just now getting around to replying to you. But even if I don’t get back to you, burn this into your head: If I don’t get back with you the day of your reply, the night after your reply, the next day, week, month, year, decade, etc., I will get back with you! I wouldn’t have engaged in protracted arguments like this, for over 14 years, if I didn’t have fun in the process. Our back and forth argument is just a drop in the bucket for me. I didn’t reply to you, after seeing your replies this morning and later in the day, because I’m testing to see how much emotion drives your actions on this thread. An emotionally charged opponent will add replies before the other side of the argument comes back to reply to their earlier response. Sure enough, you came back and posted another comment. Before you could dismiss my fact based, logical, reasoned, arguments, you need to actually advance an argument proving them as being other than facts, reason, or logic. You’ve colossally failed to do that. Also, you need to answer my questions first before you demand that I provide you with anything. So, without further ado: “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.” — thebesig And (bolded so that you don’t miss them: 1. Is murder the ONLY form of domestic violence?… Read more »
Off to bed I go, ready to sleep good.
If you have a question about whether I’ll reply or not, review what I said above. I will reply at a time of my choosing.
Meanwhile, your replies make you come across the way Baghdad Bob/Comical Ali came across in this video:
But wait! There’s more!
The Old Maj: Uniform Crime Reporting data by it’s very definition is raw data. False. What you’re seeing, when you access their reports, is the result of someone else’s analysis of the raw data. It’s also a database that contains unorganized data. The data that you get depends on the search parameters that you put in. Also, the accuracy of the data is going to depend on input. Most men, that experience domestic violence, don’t report the incident. If these men don’t report the incident to the police, or to any other law enforcement, how is their data going to end up in the database? It isn’t. Thus, the result is going to be based on what’s reported. This isn’t “scientific”. The Old Maj: If you need an education on what it is or how it is collected check out Wikipedia. You do realize that I’ve taken a doctoral level research class across two academic quarters, do you? A doctoral research class teaches you how to utilize the scientific method to gather data related to a research question, and how to analyze that data. Wikipedia is an invalid reference to use. As was pointed out to you, anybody could edit a Wikipedia article. There’s no screening for qualification. This is opposed to the gold standard of credibility… the academic peer reviewed journal article… aka “the study”. The Old Maj: If it is flawed in some way please show it. The Wikipedia article doesn’t show the scientific method. It only explains what the UCR does. It doesn’t show raw data, it doesn’t show a literature review, it doesn’t show an analysis section, methodology, etc. Neither does the actual UCR site. The Old Maj: You will make the Black Lives Matter people thrilled. The emotional drive that I see in your arguments, your argument’s lack of logic, your lack of direction, etc., makes you more consistent with Black Lives Matter. The Old Maj: To a point. Your arguments would actually make sense if women murdered male domestic partners at equal or higher rates. They don’t so this is a logical fallacy. [INDUCTIVE… Read more »
Still no numbers to back your assertions. Shocked I am not. Going to be out and about all day, maybe tomorrow? Doubtful.
Meant to post it here, from above: Don’t worry, my rebuttals to you are almost as guaranteed as death and taxes. The only way you could escape my rebuttals is to outlive me. I’m almost 48. Do you feel lucky? In case you missed it, I have every intention of dismantling your replies… ad infinitum. Originally posted by Non Compos Mentis: REPEAT POINT Still no numbers to back your assertions. Shocked I am not. Going to be out and about all day, maybe tomorrow? Doubtful. REPEAT POINT First, I respond to you at time of my choosing. I read your replies this morning, and the follow-on reply later in the day. I’m just now getting around to replying to you. But even if I don’t get back to you, burn this into your head: If I don’t get back with you the day of your reply, the night after your reply, the next day, week, month, year, decade, etc., I will get back with you! I wouldn’t have engaged in protracted arguments like this, for over 14 years, if I didn’t have fun in the process. Our back and forth argument is just a drop in the bucket for me. I didn’t reply to you, after seeing your replies this morning and later in the day, because I’m testing to see how much emotion drives your actions on this thread. An emotionally charged opponent will add replies before the other side of the argument comes back to reply to their earlier response. Sure enough, you came back and posted another comment. Before you could dismiss my fact based, logical, reasoned, arguments, you need to actually advance an argument proving them as being other than facts, reason, or logic. You’ve colossally failed to do that. Also, you need to answer my questions first before you demand that I provide you with anything. So, without further ado: “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.” — thebesig And (bolded so that you don’t miss them: 1. Is… Read more »
Thanks for all that, I need a new scroll button on my mouse now.
I’m with dusty
TL,DR
Too long, didn’t read
Don’t we have any sort of moderation here ?
Yeah, we do. It’s called ‘self-moderation’ otherwise known as editing copy.
So do you want fries and a shake with that? Or would you rather have the comic book version from DC Comics?
Docduracoat: I’m with dusty
Then that makes both of you wrong, for the arguments listed below. SPLASH! The lemmings are jumping… SPLASH! There goes Lemming Docduracoat. 🙄
Docduracoat: TL,DR…Too long, didn’t read
Yet, you had to open your pie hole and complain about the length while not offering anything related to any of the arguments on this thread, or to the original topic.
Most adults, when they see an article, or comment, that’s too long for them to read, go on to a shorter article or post. They don’t bitch, whine, moan and groan about a post length that forces their one brain celled activity to actually do its job. Apparently, we’re not dealing with an adult here, aren’t we?
Just like a kid to complain about something rather than do the sensible thing and move on to the next post or article. Do you want popcorn with that. 🙄
But, you come across as being the braindead drama type. Tell that one brain celled activity of yours to stop trying to take you over, and to actually do its job. This will hopefully prevent you from typing as if a retarded ghost possesses you.
Docduracoat: Don’t we have any sort of moderation here ?
If you need babysitting, go elsewhere. There is moderation here, but not to the extent that you want. If there would be any need for moderation, it would be to do things like delete stupid comments like yours.
Exposing you pulling the snowflake maneuver is funner.
I look forward to reading, and to dismantling, your butthurt reply tomoorow.