I just wrote about the RNC losing the rhetoric battle on women. Now I have a personal example of someone losing the rhetoric battle to me.
Look around at some of my recent posts and Roxeanne de Luca will show up. She’s an angry little person who really wants me to know just how mad she is. For a little while, though, she only wanted me to know that (and, I suppose, FTSOS readers). She hid a few of my comments from her readers due to her pattern of cowardice, but once called out on it, I guess she re-thought things. (At least, she re-thought them a little bit; some of my posts are still missing.) She recently allowed this post of mine:
You probably won’t post this, but I’m sure you’ll see it: Your cowardice is astounding, Roxeanne. Not only have you run away from debates when you were trounced on my blog, but you have the gall to write about people you’re too afraid to let respond.
I know you like to take the “I’m older than you, therefore I’m a smart adult and you should listen to me by default” route, but methinks it’s fair to say you’ve fully lost the right to that (boring) strategy through your childish cowardice.
I didn’t think reverse psychology would work since her blog presumably isn’t a kid’s sitcom from the 90’s, but here we are. She responded:
Learn the difference between having a life/not feeding the trolls and cowardice. You aren’t brave; you’re bored and you’re boring.
This is when I know I’ve beat her. She’s the little kid who dropped her ice cream and everyone laughed at her. Now in order to make herself feel better, she wants to slap the cone out of my hand by reflecting my rhetoric and calling me boring.
It looks like, as usual, Roxeanne’s anger has gotten the best of her. At least she’s giving me a reason to fill up my “Humor” category a little bit more.
Filed under: Humor | Tagged: Cowardice, Rhetoric, Roxeanne de Luca |
For the Sake of Science 
I’m really surprised by how much you write about this woman. She seems like a minor blogger and the only post of hers I read I found your defense silly.
Roxeanna pointed out the absurdity in a couple assuring us they love their daughter, but wish they had aborted her. I can see their point in suing the company they hired to screen the fetus for problems to see if they should abort, but $3 million is an outrageous amount. I think they’re being opportunistic, but Roxeanna was simply showing how strange it is for them to hold those two opinions.
Re-read what Roxeanne said, Michael. She claimed that the couple would gladly kill their daughter. That is false. They would have aborted a fetus under particular conditions. Millions of other people would. Hell, if I’m ever in the situation where I’ve impregnated a woman with a kid with some sort of disorder and my two cents are wanted, I’m going to favor abortion. That does not mean that if we have the kid anyway that I do not love him/her.
I don’t see how you can possibly agree with her. People can favor abortion under certain circumstances (or any circumstances, for that matter) and still end up loving a fetus they bring to term.
Michael: my mere existence – conservative, female, educated, science background – irritates the living daylights out of Hawkins. He lies about me (I moderate every single post that goes through my blog; he isn’t singled out), lies about what he writes (which my blog-friend Matt smacked him down on as well); lies about what I say (Nicholas nailed him on that, as did I), says nasty things about me, then is convinced that I’m the one with problems. I’m torn between wanting to smack him down, laugh at him, or call his school and force someone to give him the help he needs.
Michael: “Roxeanne says A. That is false. A happened.”
I said that their entire lawsuit was about how they want the right to kill their daughter in utero. If that weren’t true, their lawsuit would be a waste of their time and utterly without merit.
You have serious issues with reading comprehension, Roxeanne. I said you moderate comments and that makes me nervous because it’s indicative of a person who is too cowardly to allow free criticism. Moreover, you have already deleted one of my posts and you refuse to approve another. Not only are you cowardly, but you’re a coward who reads poorly.
No one is buying the “I’m a strong woman and that’s why he hates me” act. You started saying that from day one purely on the basis that I said you claimed the mantle of science in a debate. Time and again your rhetoric is unsupported by not only the facts but even by any attempt on your part to defend your statements.
You have said multiple times that the couple would kill their daughter if they could. You’re factually wrong. As usual.
Feel free to steal any rhetoric here that has particularly stood out to you.
Michael, insult away all you want. I moderated comments long before you came along and do it for reasons that are not those you ascribe to me. I’m not scared of you or your total lack of intellect; I am, however, not going to muck up my nice blog with your trollish behaviour.
You’ve claimed the mantle of science by being a biology major. I guess when I point out that my degree is equal to or better than the one you’re still working on, I’m “claiming the mantle of science” or “stealing your rhetoric.”
Keep up that ‘tude, Guppy Michael, and enjoy getting flushed down the toilet of real life when you go fins up upon graduation.
I just can’t believe Mr. Hawkins is disagreeing with a woman so much. Clearly he is motivated by bigotry.
Roxeanne, if you believed I was a troll, you wouldn’t allow any of my comments nor would you post about me. Please try to start thinking ahead more than a single step every time you make an argument.
There are two times where you’ve seen me talk about being a bio major dating to the time when I first destroyed your terrible arguments. The first was probably when you read my “About” tab. The second was when I said, in response to your argument from authority, that I actually have more authority within biology than you in all likelihood, but that does not mean that I therefore can validly pull rank on you, as it were, in order to make my argument.
Michael, now that a man makes the point…well, maybe there is something to it. I’ll consider it now.
Oh heavens.
Michael, learn to debate in ways that don’t involve being 100% inconsistent and then get mad when people point out that your logic doesn’t stand up or that you’re a liar. (Read your post about “knowing” that you’ve won. Looks like a lot of people are saying what I’m saying: that you lie and that you are a case study in projecting your own issues onto others.)
Apropos of that, I tend to think at least ten steps ahead in an argument, which is why I lead you to contradict yourself, then get the joy in slamming you for doing so. Unfortunately, you’re so childish that you then immediately declare yourself the winner, based on having your head handed to you on a silver platter.
For example, I nicely lead you to contradict your initial assertion that all those who moderate comments are cowards. Instead of either tempering your rhetoric or, heaven forbid, admitting that you’re wrong, you declared yourself the winner. Nice work, if you can get it, but Guppy Michael will find that the big fish will eat him alive for that stuff.
Likewise, your blog is NAMED “for the sake of science.” You proudly declare that you’re this great amazing SCIENTIST, and that all you do is from the position of SCIENCE. Then, when someone points out that your bio courses do not make you the biggest bestest science authority ever, you get all mad – and then say, “Hey, I won, because you’re arguing from authority or reflecting my arguments back to me!”
Having your own arguments successfully thrown in your face is a sign that you’ve just had your ass kicked. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of going into a bar, ready to fight, with a .38 on each hip, and finding yourself disarmed with your own weapons pointed at your head as you lay hog-tied on the ground. That isn’t winning.
It’s no longer like you aren’t even trying to hide the fact that you’re the kid who dropped her ice cream and now you’re crying. You’re being pretty explicit at this point.
lulz, as it were. I said I don’t trust people who moderate comments. I also said you were a coward for deleting comments. Your counterargument is that you moderate all comments. All anyone can conclude from that is that I don’t trust you. Then, when they take into account that you cowardly delete comments, they can also conclude that my suspicions of you were right. That you think the idea of contradiction is even relevant here is humorous.
Again, here’s the thing with your rhetoric: You jump straight into the analogies and big talk, but you never manage to build up to it. Look at my post about your anger issues. I built up to my big point by talking about your statements on 1) condoms, 2) citations, 3) positive claims, 4) ethical issues, 5) elective procedures, and 6) malpractice claims. From there I used appropriate language to really make my point.
I’ve never read such projection. Literally never, Roxeanne. You need to go back and read your huffs and puffs about everyone hating you because you have a vagina when they tell you that your liberal studies degree does not give you some magical authority to tell everyone about the scientific concept of development (which is something you consistently confuse with the subjective concept of humanity).
I eagerly await the day you actually address someone’s argument.