Relatively ancient and inactive
You said that it supported your belief that she was idiotic and unintelligent.
By definition, it supports it. 'To provide for or maintain' from thefreedictionary.com. Both my arguments, to my perception, and this generality support that Palin is stupid. Thus, the arguments support one another. I had given an argument for that she is stupid. Then I said that the generality says the same thing, ie
supports it. What aren't you getting?
He has completed refuted it, your arguments are silly, using the same method, I could infer that Obama is stupid, because the majority of Black people have a lower IQ than most. Generally is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about a single person.
And again, you ignore that I had already given a valid argument, no, two valid arguments that say the same thing. Apply THOSE arguments to Obama and your comparison holds.
No, but they provide a solid argument against them, rather than making their side look better by hiding certain key facts.
Please, tell me what facts I have hidden.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
You said 'No, I'm merely amused that you put value specifically where it's convenient.'. In other words, you want me to put value where its not convenient, which is arguing for you, supporting your case.
I haven't done adequate research into what you've said and I don't know the contexts. I'm arguing because I like the irony.
So, 'for the heck of it'. That's fine.
None.