I just want to clarify that the purpose of this response is to highlight the constant inability that
@SpacelySprockets has in understanding and following basic axioms of logic, so other posters will know not to waste their time engaging him.
BREAKING DOWN SPACELYSPROCKETS INABILITY TO THINK AND REASON - by AJaRuleStan
This is where we start; the bolded text is the catalyst that starts to uncover
@SpacelySprockets poor critical thinking skills. His direct response below.
This qoute is central in understanding how absurdly stupid Spacey is. As you can see, he completely misses the main point of my initial post regarding the "
strike against" 50, but more importantly, he replaces this
"who had his label shut down by the feds" to mean this
"bbbbut the feds ended ja rules career not 50" and then he regurgitates an array of counter arguments against his imagined argument for his imagined opponent. A clear example that spacey is not working with a full deck, but look what follows.
^^^above was my response to his strawman and his points that followed it. Now, when pressed with why he went off on such an obvious tangent, he explains that it wasn't meant for me(
he's obviously back tracking to avoid facing an embarrassing mistake) but w/e. What's really bizarre is how he rationalizes that his points designed to counter his strawman, "
still stands". At this point I was convinced that he wasn't attempting to bait me, he's just really dumb.
This is really troubling -- on so many levels -- that its staggering to figure out where to begin unpacking his fallacies. But the obvious and most glaring flaw is how he truly believes that his argue-points against this, "
bbbbut the feds ended ja rules career not 50" works as an argument against this, "
the feds played the biggest role in Ja's career coming to end".
The ladder argument still implies other components -- in compound -- caused Ja's career to end, the former doesn't. And despite how many times I explain the clear difference between both ideas, Spacely is still completely oblivious to them. He literally thinks both ideas are 100% equal. In one sense, its remarkable that someone this stupid can even turn on a computer, let alone post on a forum.
And even IF he lacks the cognitive software to detect any sort of degrees, levels, magnitudes, or intensities, within a context, in my first response to him I say this verbatim, "
who had his label shut down by the feds". I clearly and concisely explain what action I blame the feds for causing. As you see, I didn't say the feds caused
blood in my eye, Uhh Ohh, or Body to flop, so how can HE think those charges he made still stand?!
Everything was specified, so Spacey literally has no excuse outside of being unable to
THINK AND REASON.
Now this was a separate argument that emerged from his strawman. Spacey is very clear in his meaning here;
Ja's career was at a point of no return before the feds came into the equation.
Concise hypothesis, no way it can be misunderstood; so the question becomes; what must be required to be found in reality to prove his claim as true? Well...for one, PERMANENT DECLINE. If he's "
DEAD" in the water, than finding evidence of any sort of recovery -- within reason -- should be IMPOSSIBLE.
It's very simple logic that a toddler could follow. I don't have to DEMONSTRATE if R.U.L.E was an absolute recovery, all I have to prove is that whatever change -- if any -- conflicts with his claim of "
dead in the water". But once again, Spacey can't follow the logic and demands something completely different that what is required to be swayed. Its truly is a pointless endeavor to use logic in a discourse with him.
SUMMARY -
What are we left to conclude about
@SpacelySprockets?
1. He's an idiot!
2. debating and idiot is futile, so don't do it!
3. "
The fact that one can even draw a relation between 50's career trajectory and Ja is one hell of a strike against 50, not Ja"