Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

PUA, Roosh V, unwelcome in Toronto

Page 5 of 5 [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Previous topic | Next topic

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

01 Sep 2015, 2:20 am

^ I'm guessing that continued personal attacks aren't what was meant by toning it down.

Whatever, I'm done with this thread.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

01 Sep 2015, 10:27 am

Raptor wrote:
^ I'm guessing that continued personal attacks aren't what was meant by toning it down.

Whatever, I'm done with this thread.
observations about your behaviour aren't personal attacks, and you've said much worse, hypocrite.



Densaugeo
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 25 Oct 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 184

01 Sep 2015, 11:09 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Me, on the other hand I think the guy ought to be debated, shown exactly where his logic is off and in fact make him prove his claims with double blind studies and statistics. If you do not agree with this, can you explain why? Thank you!


I don't think you understand how political debates work. Double-blind studies and statistics almost never convince most people; that's why political campaigns don't use them. If you were to debate Roosh, here is what would happen:

1) You would bring out logic and statistics.
2) The audience would fall asleep.
3) Roosh would then ignore your logic and wake everyone back up with clever rhetoric and funny anecdotes.

Ideas don't have to be 'right' to convince people, or for people to act on them. You can argue about whether to place more value on freedom of speech or personal safety, but activists like Roosh are able to convince people to do wrong things, just like ISIS recruiters are able to convince Western converts to fight for a terrorist theocracy. ISIS can't win a rational debate any more than Roosh could, but they both still get results.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,954

02 Sep 2015, 9:46 pm

Densaugeo wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Me, on the other hand I think the guy ought to be debated, shown exactly where his logic is off and in fact make him prove his claims with double blind studies and statistics. If you do not agree with this, can you explain why? Thank you!


I don't think you understand how political debates work. Double-blind studies and statistics almost never convince most people; that's why political campaigns don't use them. If you were to debate Roosh, here is what would happen:

1) You would bring out logic and statistics.
2) The audience would fall asleep.
3) Roosh would then ignore your logic and wake everyone back up with clever rhetoric and funny anecdotes.

Ideas don't have to be 'right' to convince people, or for people to act on them. You can argue about whether to place more value on freedom of speech or personal safety, but activists like Roosh are able to convince people to do wrong things, just like ISIS recruiters are able to convince Western converts to fight for a terrorist theocracy. ISIS can't win a rational debate any more than Roosh could, but they both still get results.


Which is why I'm not in politics and would never want to be. It is why I weep for humanity.