Why are interracial divorce rates higher for white women than white men?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAmazingGrace
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PLinz said:
How can you actually misrepresent what I’ve said just in this thread? Do you think the readers here are dumb? Apparently you do. Either that or you have reading comprehension problems. It really doesn’t demonstrate your attention to detail. Is it your theory that is “unbelievable”? Is it “unbelievable” that others don’t think you’re right? Is it “unbelievable” that maybe you’re wrong?

You seem hellbent on pushing your theory regardless of what anyone says. Everything anyone says confirms your theory. Such an approach cannot be reasoned with, and I don’t have any interest in reasoning with an unreasonable person. Your tactic to use ad hominems and other fallacies in place of an actual argument should be enough for an intelligent person to see through your claims and realize that you are trying to cloak a personal attack against with a plausible motive. You claim that you are mentioned on “dalrock.wordpress.com” - are you just trying to take it out on someone? If so, maybe you shouldn’t Google yourself so much (it’s a bit narcissistic, too).
Click to expand...
I’ve posted the pics of you dropping CAF links and then posting on behalf of others. The only part of this that you deny is that you are Marcus. Again, there are pics.:D.

You agreed to post it, then confirmed it was posted, and then agreed to post follow-ups, and confirmed they were posted. Screenshots and links are up.

Just own it. You’re clearly passionate about this stuff, so just come out with it.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Also, on the topic of fallacies, I’m not saying your wrong because you hang out on those sites. I’m stating the fact that you have admitted that this is a “spare account” and that you are always trying to get your buddies over here. Again, not a fallacy. I’ve posted the pics of Marcus agreeing to post and then confirming the post to Lyn under this account. That’s also not a fallacy.
Click to expand...
You don’t apparently realize that you’re resorting to fallacies (which doesn’t help your other claims). Here’s an article on what fallacies are: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I’ve posted the pics of you dropping CAF links and then posting on behalf of others. The only part of this that you deny is that you are Marcus. Again, there are pics.:D.

You agreed to post it, then confirmed it was posted, and then agreed to post follow-ups, and confirmed they were posted. Screenshots and links are up.

Just own it. You’re clearly passionate about this stuff, so just come out with it.
Click to expand...
In case you missed it: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14411206&postcount=31
 
It depends on the purpose. BlueEyedLady is using ad hominems and the association fallacy in place of an argument. I’m pointing out that her inability to read and understand what I’ve written is either a problem of reading comprehension or disingenuity, and that she’s wasting my time and her time by bringing up other unrelated things as an attempt at smokescreening. None of this reflects well on the veracity of her claims of a grand conspiracy theory, nor her trustworthiness.

Are you an impartial observer?
 
I have been unfairly selected for the third degree by an unreasonable person bent on using me as the effigy for their conspiracy theory, either due a personal vendetta (which explains the ad hominems and the abrupt entrance into the thread) or a desire to make a show of usefulness (this certainly seems related to continually Googling herself).
 
PLinz said:
It depends on the purpose. BlueEyedLady is using ad hominems and the association fallacy in place of an argument. I’m pointing out that her inability to read and understand what I’ve written is either a problem of reading comprehension or disingenuity, and that she’s wasting my time and her time by bringing up other unrelated things as an attempt at smokescreening. None of this reflects well on the veracity of her claims of a grand conspiracy theory, nor her trustworthiness.

Are you an impartial observer?
Click to expand...
Not fallacies. Screenshots you don’t want to talk about. In fact, refusing to address them and attacking my intellect is a pretty good demonstration of fallacy.😉
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Not fallacies. Screenshots you don’t want to talk about. In fact, refusing to address them and attacking my intellect is a pretty good demonstration of fallacy.😉
Click to expand...
You accuse me of “thinly veiled white supremacy” (which is an outrageous and underhanded charge) right in this thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14411401&postcount=33). When I point out that such a claim is a fallacy, you deflect and redirect (despite knowing what I’m talking about) by referring to the images that you posted (and pretending that somehow a photo can constitute a fallacy). (That’s when you aren’t ignoring by request for evidence for such a claim.) It’s a transparent and dishonest tactic that you’re using. To a reasonable person your use of such dishonest tactics out in the open should call into question other claims that you’ve made.
 
PLinz said:
You accuse me of “thinly veiled white supremacy” (which is an outrageous and underhanded charge) right in this thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14411401&postcount=33). When I point out that such a claim is a fallacy, you deflect and redirect (despite knowing what I’m talking about) by referring to the images that you posted (and pretending that somehow a photo can constitute a fallacy). It’s a transparent and dishonest tactic that you’re using. To a reasonable person your use of such dishonest tactics out in the open should call into question other claims that you’ve made.
Click to expand...
Nope. I started out in this thread by calling you out. And the only point I’ve made is that your account is demonstrably a spare and that you spend a lot of time trying to stir the pot on CAF.

I’m not really interested in arguing what you said because I don’t want to argue with a sock puppet. And I outed you so others would have the choice to avoid it as well.

No fallacies, just showing others because this is such a common thing around here.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Nope. I started out in this thread by calling you out. And the only point I’ve made is that your account is demonstrably a spare and that you spend a lot of time trying to stir the pot on CAF.

I’m not really interested in arguing what you said because I don’t want to argue with a sock puppet. And I outed you so others would have the choice to avoid it as well.

No fallacies, just showing others because this is such a common thing around here.
Click to expand...
Your reply here demonstrates that you are indeed deliberately trying to make personal attacks without concern for their veracity. Doubling down (again) and pretending that you’re “not really interested in arguing”, despite an obvious lie on your part is underhanded. If you’re willing to lie openly about something I supposedly said in this thread, that others can easily confirm, than why should they be taken in by your conspiracy theory?

I’ve pointed out a lie you made in this thread, directed towards me for dishonest and dishonorable purposes, and you have on multiple occasions refused to retract the claim or provide evidence for it.
 
PLinz said:
Your reply here demonstrates that you are indeed deliberately trying to make personal attacks without concern for their veracity. Doubling down (again) and pretending that you’re “not really interested in arguing”, despite an obvious lie on your part is underhanded. If you’re willing to lie openly about something I supposedly said in this thread, that others can easily confirm, than why should they be taken in by your conspiracy theory?

I’ve pointed out a lie you made in this thread, directed towards me for dishonest and dishonorable purposes, and you have on multiple occasions refused to retract the claim or provide evidence for it.
Click to expand...
You don’t think calling black men allergic to commitment qualifies? Again, that’s fine. It doesn’t matter. I truly don’t care about the thoughts of a “spare” account. I care much more that people see this.

I think it’s pretty telling you insist I’m lying yet you refuse to address the pics I posted of you laying it out word for word. And I keep seeing on Dalrock that men are the ones who take responsibility and are accountable for their actions…

I’ve defended my view with pics and links. You’ve defended yours by typing ‘fallacy’ and ‘conspiracy’ over and over.

And again, pics are there for all to see.:cool:
 
I’m done with this thread. You are hellbent on making me fit into your conspiracy theory, and you don’t care what level of harassment you subject me to in order to make it seem real. You also don’t seem to care about the truth, either, deciding to smear me with verifiably ridiculous claims and refusing to admit it or apologize for it.

Here’s the user account that sent me the comment to post: forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=480721

I’ve reported you for harassment and other rule violations.
 
PLinz said:
I’m done with this thread. You are hellbent on making me fit into your conspiracy theory, and you don’t care what level of harassment you subject me to in order to make it seem real. You also don’t seem to care about the truth, either, deciding to smear me with verifiably ridiculous claims and refusing to admit it or apologize for it.

Here’s the user account that sent me the comment to post: forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=480721

I’ve reported you for harassment and other rule violations.
Click to expand...
That seems wise. I’ll bow out too.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
You don’t think calling black men allergic to commitment qualifies?
Click to expand...
I said no such thing. And just because an African American magazine chooses to do so is for you to ask them about. Your belief that linking to such an article counts as “thinly veiled white supremacy” demonstrates the same kind of intellectual rigor to which you have subjected your conspiracy theory. (I’m sure, also, that the authors of such an article would be greatly entertained by your claim.)
 
PLinz said:
I would appreciate an apology, frankly.
Click to expand...
Why? You’re trying to gaslight the forum. Your stance is literally “those links and screenshots don’t say what they say”.

If I unfairly pinned you as Marcus, I would apologize wholeheartedly. But frankly, there’s no evidence of that and you haven’t even attempted to explain how that could possibly be. In fact, you refuse to address the pics and links. Again, that’s fine. The other posters are able to see and that’s what matters because frankly, the constant push to bring an army over here is getting obnoxious.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Why? You’re trying to gaslight the forum.
Click to expand...
No. You believe that’s the case, but it’s not.
BlueEyedLady said:
Your stance is literally “those links and screenshots don’t say what they say”.
Click to expand...
I never said anything of the sort. You either are lying (again) or you misunderstand what I’ve written.
BlueEyedLady said:
If I unfairly pinned you as Marcus, I would apologize wholeheartedly.
Click to expand...
So, are you going to apologize? Or is that just a meaningless and pointless sentence that you wrote?
BlueEyedLady said:
there’s no evidence of that and you haven’t even attempted to explain how that could possibly be.
Click to expand...
I have. You’re lying again.
BlueEyedLady said:
In fact, you refuse to address the pics and links.
Click to expand...
You’re lying again.

I refuse to believe your reading comprehension is this poor. You are either lying or desperate to prove your conspiracy theory true. I have never seen someone stretch the truth so far in trying to pin someone down (or to smear them for personal or political reasons). I would hope that you would realize that the truth is far more important than any theory. But, I do understand that you’ve committed too much to your theory to ever back down and admit that you were wrong. Still, I would hope that you would have the maturity to do that anyway (particularly with the apology).
 
PLinz said:
No. You believe that’s the case, but it’s not.

I never said anything of the sort. You either are lying (again) or you misunderstand what I’ve written.

So, are you going to apologize? Or is that just a meaningless and pointless sentence that you wrote?

I have. You’re lying again.

You’re lying again.

I refuse to believe your reading comprehension is this poor. You are either lying or desperate to prove your conspiracy theory true.
Click to expand...
Your stance is that you aren’t Marcus. The screenshots and links show otherwise. You refuse to address them. And they’re pretty irrefutable.😉
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Your stance is that you aren’t Marcus. The screenshots and links show otherwise. You refuse to address them. And they’re pretty irrefutable.😉
Click to expand...
If you believe your own theory, such a thing is irrefutable. You make them seem more conclusive than they actually are. Again, as I’m sure you wish to ignore or forget, I was asked to post a comment on behalf of someone else. I told you who and all other details. You continue to want to push your claims as well as harass me.
BlueEyedLady said:
I Google my own screen name with a few keywords every once in awhile. Getting a shout out in the comments on a site like Dalrock is always a badge of honor:D
Click to expand...
Which doesn’t seem to explain how you found this post (dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/riding-the-brake/) on “dalrock.wordpress.com”, since your name is mentioned nowhere on the page. Was that another lie on your part?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top