Pink slime

That's stupid. What you're really doing is looking for arbitrary bullshit to hate on this guy for.

Ha! That is rich.
Like you have never hated on someone for lacking a source?

lol

He's not lacking anything. All the information we need has already been provided.

This never gets old, does it?

But not by him, nor has he actually applied it to his argument.
I understand your point, but I want him to confirm that the provided proof is what he was saying.
I could go back through your arguments on other threads and provide what I think is supporting evidence of your arguments, but I would need you to actually review the evidence and confirm that it is what you mean to say and not something else entirely.
Beyond that, he is simply doing as is what appears to be what he always does: say something he knows will be inflamatory on this forums, banter for while [making more ridiculous claims along the way], and then abandoning the argument and the thread when people raise ligitimate, well thought-out points or even mildly coherent points.

And he still has not ligitimized his other claims, one of which you yourself called 'silly'.

It does, but only after a while, when the laughter dies completely or we find better things to do.

Imperial is just being a douche.

Kali taught me well.

I wish I got all my values from the forums.

Its not too late to cash in on this exclusive offer!

Oh thank you Jesus!!!

Before I go to sleep, I want to recommend you people Fast Food Nation, great movie. Now, if you excuse me gentlemen, good night.

Ha! Hey everybody, Yarpen sleeps!
Fag!

Dude you're just picking an argument with Imperial because you have some personal grudge/rivalry with him. You're doing the exact thing you accuse Imperial of doing...

In other words: damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Irrelevant. When issues of fact are raised, unless they're actually disputed, then there's no need to cite your claims. There is absolutely no purpose served by him reiterating what someone else has already said, especially since no one disagrees with what's been said.

You don't want him to do that. In fact, you want the exact opposite. Otherwise you wouldn't have raised the issue at all.

If this were an issue of opinion, sure. If, as it is in this case, an issue of fact was raised and I do not actively dispute it, it can be reasonably assumed (and should be) that I agree with the presentation of facts. Obviously you can dispute the factual claims at any point, but we have no reason to think you disagree unless you state your disagreement.

Let's say we've got a bus stop, and three people at the bus stop. It is 4:55 PM. Man A asks to no one in particular what time the next bus will arrive. Man B responds that the bus will arrive shortly. Man C adds, after checking the signboard, that the bus will arrive at 5:00 PM. It is not only unreasonable for us to expect Man B to outright state his agreement with Man C, it is extremely ignorant of us to not reasonably assume that Man B agrees with Man C's presentation of the facts.

I'm not defending him or his ideals, I'm attacking your ridiculous expectations of him. Also, it's "legitimized".

Funny, I thought say, the Soviet Union was pretty big on non-organic food. They made a right mess of a number of central Asian countries with their 'intensive' farming techniques (ie- fuckloads of chemicals) I think. Anyway, this whole debate is pointless because as Hitler and I know, the way forward is vegetarianism. And if Hitler is on my side, FascistPatriot cannot possibly disagree.

What? I don't really care if you're doing the same thing as Imperial, as long as you don't try to place yourself on a pedestal made entirely of hypocrisy and your massive ego...

Was this supposed to communicate something relevant?

Except I'm not.

Why do you people always resort to ad hominem?

What?
When you state something in a debate, you always should have the ability to back it up. You have said that yourself several times in multiple threads.
If you take issue with the fact that I have not demanded that he prove his claims, then you have obviously not been reading my posts whatsoever.
When I stated that I did not dispute his claims so much as demand proof of them, it was paramount to demanding that he provide proof and that he claims were false or misleading or simply that he has not backed them up, which he didn't.
Mayor did the favor of providing several links to proof, but Fascist has to confirm that it proves his point and not something entirely different. Beyond that, he has to provide proof of where his claims came from themselves, what ligitimate grounds that he levels his accusations from. He can, of course, shift his argument onto the stable ground that Mayor has provided, but the fact will forever remain that his original accusations were coming from a source that he never felt reputable enough to cite.
Its like he got his opinion from RT and then made a statement, but never posted the RT article that he was using as the grounds for his argument because he knew that it is not considered a reputable source. Then someone comes along and posts a BBC article about the same thing and summerizes that it supports the claim he got from the RT article. But we all know that you have to actually review the information provided to make sure that the accusation leveled based on the RT article is the same idea that the BBC article at least implies.
Fascist never did that. Nor did he even acknowledge that someone with at least one iota of respectability on this forums had backed up what he thought was Fascist's claims with several reputable sources and a reasonable conclusion.

Thank you ***hole for telling me what I want.
Breaking news people! Hot off the press! If you want to know what Imperial, who rarely agrees with Kali, thinks, just ask Kali because he is all-knowing!

Its ridiculous to expect proof? The exact thing that you have demanded from everybody since you set foot on this forums?

Beyond the claim that ammonia is safe, he has made two additional claims:
1) That the news networks are controled by 'communists' and propogate 'marxist lies'.
2)

I tire of trying to reason this out with you.
The fact is that he has to back up his claims or at least acknowledge proof that others have provided that support his claims and confirm that they support what he is saying.