Night Strike wrote:I made the statement the resolution's language originally said the entire organization was racist. You called it "rubbish" and a "falsehood", asking me to provide a link with proof while you also claimed they only ever denounced racial elements.
So far so good...
Night Strike wrote:I provided a quotation that supported my position and you claimed I was selectively editing.
... because it was a quotation you had selectively edited from a wider article (which was, itself, an edited secondary source).
i.e. I was quite justified in saying precisely that, as the quotation that I supplied from the wider article (which undermined your position almost entirely) demonstrated.
Night Strike wrote:I'm glad most of the members of this forum are smarter than you because you have clearly shown yourself to be a person who dismisses a logical sequence of argumentation in an effort to try to discredit me. Debate the point or leave the thread as it's obvious that right now you're just avoiding/ignoring the evidence you asked for.
Ahh yes, bluster and anger, always a sign that somebody is doing well.
Your problem, Nighty, is that you don't actually appear to be able to construct logical sequences of argumentation. Hence, you cannot recognise them when they come from others. All you see is conclusions that you agree with, and conclusions that you disagree with; you mistake the former for 'logic' and the latter for 'everything else'. Which is why you're always unable to rise beyond the mere partisan level of debates.