E-rock

it's not a problem specific to black communities and nobody claimed it was solely a problem of education that would be solved in short order. It has also to do with communities, therefore jobs, etc .. My neighborhood IS black, and largely uneducated. And the problems are much bigger than nutrition.

lots of nutrition experts (to stay on topic) agree about it too. Funny how that works. Are you going all post-modern relativist on us? Okay dude, open up your organic food co-op in my neighborhood, which ain't Capital Hill, offer a few courses on nutrition (maybe even have black people teach them so people come), close all the KFC's, and see how may people drive over to Aldi.

Knowing what's best for poor people. So hot right now.

It all hinges on your assumption that people are giving you shit because they can't/won't argue against your points in some sinister attempt to SILENCE you. Actually, we'd like to see you keep going.

fuck you, crybaby

Stupid Climber's board, what good it that thing. The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument. Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

You don't know what you're fucking talking about.

Just more ad-hom drivel from you, Rob Zombie. Care to actually address any of the points j_bot made. No? That's what I thought. You're just a shill trying to shout down the truth. It must suck to be so mindlessly corrupt and morally bankrupt. I bet you fuck puppies.

BLIND FUCKING ACCEPTANCE!!! YOU HEAR THAT YOU FUCKING ZOMBIES!!!!

Thats white people ad-hominy! all it needs is bacon or pig added.......... And tripe! mmmmm, menudo.

Note to j_bot, the comment you responded to was a joke. And quite funny in the context of the thread.

Just to be clear, you believe this stuff you write? I just want to make sure it's not satire.

There's no accounting for taste.

j_bot 9,000: "greetings humans, err, I mean, *fellow* humans. Look at what my search algorithm gleaned from the almighty interwebs, which supports my broad-minded view of the universe" Fellow human: I disagree j_bot 9,000: Are you going to agree with me, or disagree in a way that I can further run algorithms to find web pages that refute your refutations? If not you are a Moron and a Right-wing thug Fellow human: What? Fuck off robot. j_bot 9,000: Ad-hominem error....... moron Fellow human: Any humorous deflection will do at this point. Whatever j_bot 9,000: What is this humor your speak of, sounds..... human? Closest related error: ad-hominem Fellow human: Snicker j_bot 9,000: are you going to argue with me? Fellow human: ?

Note the j_bot. The spank joke was actually funny. If you want to approximate a human, you have to at least pretend to get the funny stuff.

It's okay to admit. It's part of the grieving process.

Are you trying to make sense of this?

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

Actually, I take that one back. KockSuck sounds about right on with that last one.

Pants on fire. neener-neener!

Yeah, what he said! Ya'll got that?

Is that true KockSuck? Moral turpitude? Despicable? My illusions are constantly being shattered by this j_bot!

Is that true, KockSuck? Would you put my liberal ass out of it's misery during the revolution?

Whoohoho! KocksuckKojak, how you gonna rebut that smackdown! Ooooooooh. Is your "ass sore"?

yes, *sigh*. Exasperation feels awesome too!