Okay so that person who made the video to me about the supposed forced abortions in China without any evidence wants to have another exchange with me again. To her credit, she was able to show her face around here after that complete pwnage I gave her. One that was so hard she removed the video so that no one would see how absolutely pathetic it was.
So what she has decided to do was go back into on of my earlier videos “Ayn Rand was a Sociopath” and try to attack something she maybe actually stood a chance with, because she clearly did not know what she was talking about with China, China’s policies and the Cultural Revolution. So let me deliver another pwnage to her ridiculous attempt at criticizing me again.
Well, I never said someone being a sociopath means they don’t have “something valuable to say”, I was saying that she was a sociopath. Changing what I said like you did in the video you made to me. And yes, “Lots of people openly cheat on their spouses, abuse drugs and are racist… doesn’t make them all sociopaths.” Sure, except I wasn’t saying that people who do are, I was citing it as evidence that she was. I wasn’t talking about people who did that in general, I was talking about Ayn Rand. Now you’ve changed my argument again. Please could you stick to mine, the one I am making. I know you can’t defend your position, like on China and forced abortions, but at least try.
But I will thank you for acknowledging that I gave facts in the video, things that came from her own writings and public statements.
Now I am not a qualified psychologist to make a medical diagnosis, I am however qualified as a human being to have an opinion, which is what I was doing. I made a statement and gave my reasons for it with her public statements and writings. Now go read “Judgement Day” and I’ll wait for you to come back with Nathaniel Branden’s opinion. You could form your own from reading her books and hearing her speeches, but I guess “Judgement Day” is good enough. But apparently I’m talking out of my ass with my backing up what I said with facts which you already acknowledge are true. Now I’m talking out of my ass. Well, which is it? Why are you undermining your own previous statement?
At this point I left a comment back noting her complete lack of facts in her video to me, about me, on the phony claims of forced abortions in China. This was her response.
Well, no not all videos are about presenting facts. Like your video on China and supposed forced abortions where you were defend their existence, not asking questions like you claim here. You were reinforcing the claims by adamantly insisting they exist without providing any evidence whatsoever. You were not asking questions you were making statements, often on things that had nothing to do with the subject at hand, like supposed persecution of Christians. Of course I can’t prove what I just said here because you took the video down when it was clear that you had no idea what you were talking about. So I don’t think you’re in any position to claim I don’t back up what I say, that’s exactly what this video on Ayn Rand does. I presented an opinion and an argument that supports it. What you were unable to do with China and abortions.
I didn’t prove I was a close-minded jerk, because if I was I’d be a religious fundamentalist like you and an anti-Communist that believes all the lies told about it. I would have to be open minded just to challenge the lies. And as for “not worth your time”; You made a video to ME, you made comments on MY video to ME, you sought out MY attention.
Oh, you’ve left another comment after you said I’m not worth your time and after you said Ciao.
Okay, good, you’ve presented an argument, which is better than you’ve done so far. He “detects feelings of guilt”, so he’s not sure if they really exist. But I guess to you that’s a freaking fact, something that someone else “detects”, but isn’t sure exists. Just like the whole China abortions issue, except now you’re passing off someone’s opinion in place of a fact. Before you gave no facts, so this is a step up for you. Good one.
The whole point of this video by me on Ayn Rand was to make an argument, take Rand’s own writings and opinions to back it up. You came in defending her, without countering any of my arguments. All you said was “Being a sociopath doesn’t preclude someone form having something valuable to say.” Which was not what I said, I was saying she was one, I said nothing about other people who are sociopaths. You also said, “Lots of people openly cheat on their spouses, abuse drugs and are racist… doesn’t make them all sociopaths.” No, that’s not what I said at all, I was referring to her and an established pattern of behaviour. Not people who do the same thing.
First you acknowledge I gave facts on her, then you turn around in the next comment and claim they weren’t facts. You are not even consistent.
So we can clearly see you never got around to countering any argument I made. But I guess I can wait until you read “Judgement Day” so that way you can have Nathaniel Branden’s opinion as opposed to forming your own.
Seriously stop now, you don’t know what you’re doing.