I'm almost starting to feel sorry for this guy. I don't think he is an intentional troll. All he has done is claim to be superior over most others in various vague ways including basic logical reasoning, argumentation, social science theories, and psychiatry/psychology while demonstrating in each of his posts his lack of basic understanding and skills with those very things. His defense has mainly been writing out vague sentences with semi sophisticated references and vocabulary that contradict his claims. I don't see why somebody would set out to troll like that.
Maybe I read it wrong but it appears that a large proportion of the posts from others do get into analyzing his reasoning, explaining the lack of it in his statements as well as asking him for explanation. Then he sticks to the position that what he says 'is because I say it is' about whatever. Along with that he summarily concludes and gives his reasoning an A+ rock solid grade and again says he provided sufficient proof and good reasoning for his conclusions and doesn't need to provide any more.
My main theory is that he is probably a pretty young guy still in UG (possibly still a Junior) that is from a well off family that while growing up has enjoyed a high standard of living provided to him by his parents and still is, got a nice car paid for by parents while in HS, etc. Basically an arrogant spoiled brat that has been handed lots of things and therefore has a feeling of entitlement/superiority.
Only other option I can think of is that he is a really lame troll. I'm still on the fence though cuz if he is participating on this LSAT board to get help to improve his reasoning skills and increase his LSAT score he probably would not be reasoning like he is and also defending it so strongly.
As GC expressed so eloquently in one of his many memorable roles, the above comments are the “acme of foolishness.” It seems like the default recourse upon encountering argumentative opposition is to spew cliché insults and cheap redirections, possibly due to an inability for substantive counters. But since it is rather entertaining to break down these self-proclaimed “troll-hunters,” let’s take a closer look at the commentary and see if we can not deconstruct the idiocy into its core elements.
Firstly, where have I claimed to be mentally superior to anyone, much less to “most others,” and even less to the specific areas of “logical reasoning, argumentation, social science theories, etc…”? If you read my original statements, I include a key word that is critical in understanding my intended meaning. This word is “seem.” I wonder if you disregard the text as easily upon reading LSAT stimuli; if so, it would certainly be of no surprise if you fall well below the standard demarcation of 172.
Secondly, my argument is quite clear and contains no internal contradiction. As I stated in a previous message, if you do not wish to confront the writing, then perhaps it is best to simply quiet yourself, since doing otherwise merely builds a character of absurdity and ineptitude.
Thirdly, I have provided ample defense for all that have questioned my original statements. I have also replied directly, and refuted, one your own objections. In reply, you provide the above nonsense, where instead of a direct retort, you resort to name calling and mischaracterization, most likely for two reasons: 1.) To convince yourself that you have adequately rebutted a position that is supposedly in opposition to your own; 2.) To save face after having your original counterargument neutralized. This really is an inappropriate method of communication, if one is intent on being serious regarding the matter at hand. I sincerely hope that you do not go off on a harangue of this sort if and when you act in the professional capacity of an attorney.
Fourthly, your attempt at grouping me into one of your preconceived categories, namely the clichéd “spoiled brat” category, is not only incorrect, but it entirely fails to respond to my rebuttal to your original counterargument. Insults aside, I once again hope you do not seriously consider your words to have any worth beyond the preface of a smut novel.
If you can bring yourself to participate in civil conversation, then perhaps you will stop making a fool of yourself by throwing out tired and trite insults that only serve to bolster your own fragile ego. In doing so, you are actually serving my original point, that is, that those who expend spiteful energy to attack a perceived threat that they have no chance of overcoming are merely prolonging and enlarging their own misery.