Do you really not understand the difference between the one you cited and the one to which I was responding?
The one to which I was responding was capricious. The one you cited has reasoning, even if you disagree with it.
And that was the whole point of my comment. That by reducing the other side to a farcical strawman, you diminish your own argument. It just becomes a yelling match.
I would rather debate the person you cited than sit complacently with the cynic to whom I responded.
Do you really not understand the difference between the one you cited and the one to which I was responding?
The one to which I was responding was capricious. The one you cited has reasoning, even if you disagree with it.
And that was the whole point of my comment. That by reducing the other side to a farcical strawman, you diminish your own argument. It just becomes a yelling match.
I would rather debate the person you cited than sit complacently with the cynic to whom I responded.
You shifted the goalposts quite a lot there; first you wanted an example of evil, and now you want an example of unreasoning evil.
Evil is often very reasonable; pretending otherwise is a 'farcical strawman' of your own.