What do you think of the gun control Obama is proposing?

OK, let's keep playing, then. So you want to give all those disabled people guns, which includes all the genuinely psychotic loons. So you must enjoy it when the news reports that someone on a psychotic break shoots a bunch of people in a school or theater or whatnot. Would you say that this impulse is strong enough to rank as a fetish?

Your lies reflect only on you, and show how truly dishonest you are.

So, following your example of how to "accurately represent" someone else's posts, I take that to mean "yes," that you do enjoy it when psychotic people shoot others, and that it is strong enough to be a fetish. Does it occur to you that others might not share your obsession?

I mentioned before how you are acting just like Bashar al-Assad acts when human rights activists confront him over using chemical weapons against civilians.

The resemblance is uncanny. I'm sure glad that the only thing you can do to me is lie about me.

I'd hate to see how much furniture you've destroyed by now. Your frustration at not being able to harm me is quite palpable.

Yes, I pointed out that ad hom fallacy when you committed it.

Moving along, are you saying that psychotic people aren't disabled? No? Well, if they're disabled, then you want to arm them. You said it yourself, many times over. It looks like you enjoy seeing psychotic people go on shooting rampages. Weird fetish, that.

Nyah nyah! No matter how many tantrums you throw, you still can't harm me.

Poor little impotent mini-Assad. Not able to do anything more than spout pathetic lies.

Red herring fallacy. Again. And fail, again.

You whined threw a tantrum, pretending that I wanted to disarm all disabled people, so you must want all disabled people to have guns. Are psychotic people disabled or not? If they're disabled, you want them to have guns. You want to arm the psychotic. What other reason could you have except that you enjoy it when psychotic people kill people. That's sick. One might even say...psychotic?

I think you may be the only person who will get any fun out of the thread from here on out then. You seem to want to bring out the unreasonable side of your interlocutor instead of the reasonable side and now this thread has devolved into insipid banter from you both.

You're exactly right. I do want to bring out the unreasonable side of my interlocutor. I want to hold it up high, shine lights on it, expose all its nooks and crannies, so that no one mistakes any of it for acutal critical reasoning. I thought I had made that clear earlier, implicitly if not explicitly.

I think both of you are sometimes being the unreasonable I am talking about in just calling each other liars etc over and over. There is a higher level of disagreement than that which would be to focus instead on the central point of each other's arguments, which is now harder to do when the thread is now basically "you're a liar", "no, you're a liar" ad nauseum.

If your goal is to highlight the unreasonable side of the argument I think there are better ways than that to do it.

It is hardly unreasonable for people to protest when you lie incessantly about them.

But what if the other side isn't posting any arguments, and is aggressively lying about me because I had the temerity to challenge what he wrote earlier?

I've started to weigh putting him on ignore. Maybe that is the answer.

Not that I am perfect at it or anything but the higher level of disagreement would be to not reflect the tone and use understatement in response to overstatement ("that's not quite true" vs "you are a liar") and to not carry any particular point on ad nauseum. I think the latter is the main part though. If you were both tripping over each other in pleasantries ad nauseum there are still diminishing returns and at some point every horse dies.

If I find myself riding an ex-horse I usually try to excuse myself from the discussion ("I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, we seem to be repeating ourselves") in order to avail myself of a live one.

Of course I usually realize that right around this point anyway so I'm obviously not immune to getting caught up in a discussion that lives long past the point at which it is profitable to anyone but getting the last word in a circular discussion is a Pyrrhic victory and there is no dishonor in quitting an exchange that no longer edifies.

Oral boy doesn't have a reasonable side, or a logical side, or even a sane side. FBM's interaction is perfectly suited to the personality (disorder) he is interacting with.