Okay, ugh. Here's a question for you.

Mm, because he's not stereotyping, because stereotypes necessarily encompass everyone; it was a typo when I said "everyone", he actually said typical, which I explicitly mentioned later on does not mean everyone. So therefore it isn't a stereotype.

This is the last time I am retreading this basic education on rhetoric

they can, it's called self-loathing, which isn't what's going on here. And he did not use it as a basis, he used your lack of evidence as the basis. That typical bit was a throwaway that did not constitute the bulk of his argument. The bulk of the argument was that you used one facetious piece of evidence to reach a…

Ad hominem means taking something you've said and saying you only believe it because you're something he finds bad about you.

Sure it's not praising and is critical but critical does not mean insulting; and frankly, my issue is your characterization of hateful and vitriolic which is just wrong by definition, as is standoffish. If you'd had a better grasp on your vocabulary you wouldn't have come off as hypersensitive to any criticism, but…

I'm having a bit of an issue understanding your accusation, because hateful and vitriolic are very different qualities then standoffish.

Where is the hate and vitriol in anything he said? And what does personally involved mean? That he heard one?

Semantics are the desperate last resort of those whose substance is left for wanting in a debate.

You should refrain from being completely wrong. He never lied, her manager did deny permission and it was only after Gaga got wind of what her manager did that she told him to go for it.

Apple does: they have a single color scheme. Making black would actually run counterintuitive to Ford, who for economic reasons kept to one color scheme.

Well there's a substantial comment; I've offended someone on the Internet with my political views? Now that's shocking. If I am getting on your nerves I'd suggest either putting on blinders to my comments or engaging me in the debate rather then pointing out uselessly that my pattern of beliefs runs so severely…

The other end is an energy-exporting nation looking for an end and finding it in America. The production of a horribly dangerous resource does not make one a "free-market wasteland" but a nation that is permitted to accept it for profit regardless of individual safety sure does. At the end of the day, if the US at…

No, I don't think Germany would. But that's because Germany doesn't determine itself to be a capitalistic free market war machine the way America does. But since America does, free trade in even the most vulnerable forms like nuclear waste, are permissible. That's not Germany's fault for using one of the tenets of the…

I'm going by the text, and hyperbole or not, I disagree. As someone who, for a living, studies Nazi German citizenry, I understand the concept of people disconnecting from atrocity. I still disagree with the family portion, but the top dogs, I'm all for the thesis of making them consider living on site.

Never said it wasn't. But punishing those related of crimes (or actions that many perceive to be criminal) ends up being problematic to the point of discomfort in my view.

So make the decisionmakers live there. They'd reach the same conclusion, maybe even moreso without their families present.

The troll is strong in this one.

I understand inflamed passions, and not to be nitpicky, but why do you wish their families should suffer? Though they also profit, they aren't choosing to sustain themselves this way, the leaders are.

Crazy places like America and Saudi Arabia. It's basically decriminalized here unless you're growing.