Reply #136: I see a teeny-tiny flaw.

[Random_Australian]

Guess what it is.

;)

That's right, it's subjectivity! More value judgments and emotive description, more reason-guessing and daydream-type caricatures, but less in the way of "here is a logical progression"

So, if I take out that kind of bullshit, I find I'm left with:

1) Poster X makes a claim about the voting behaviour of "Latino" census districts.

(Removed: 'daydream argument' or the claim that one of the people is automatically rational and correct as an a priori assumption)

2) Two posters, we'll call "Space Junk" and "Stalin", say that the label "Latino" is offensive (Hey, your example, not mine.)

(Removed: 'several thousand' because it is another daydream caricature, and most of the rest for nearly the same reason. You are setting up one side to win the argument, rather than showing a logical process by which we can conclude something)

3) Poster X continues to use the term "Latino".

4) Space Junk and Stalin somehow don't stop being offended.

5) Conclusion: conclude from this whatever you like.

However, HamdenRice, it can hardly escape my notice that your intent there had little to do with illustrating a logical process and more to do with insulting people when you could. I notice this from the ratio of how much was said by you to how much was left once I removed the insults.

(It was 3.47 insults per argument by word count, actually) :)