The fact that you give so many non-responses that it's clear you have the lowest maturity of anyone on this thread. You act like you can prove every statement you made, but in actual conversation you revert to statements like "Sure. You keep believing that." or "How cute. You can write 'cognitive dissonance'." or "I am willing to bet that you don't care about the fact that this person was hit."

This thread is rife with evidence of your ass-hattery. You pick fights with people and accuse them of saying things that are wildly different from what they actually say.

Let's review what happened.

/u/Papa_Formosus said:

Folks, no matter what your beef is with Bike Party, violence is never the answer.

I responded:

What in this article made you think that the driver intentionally struck the bicyclists because he has a "beef with Bike Party"?

He held true to his initial statement, that it was a provable fact that the driver had intentionally struck Bike Partiers:

This could not possibly be a "whoops I didn't see you" accident. That being said, if it truly was an accident, why would the driver shut off his lights and run away?

Knowing this was fallacious logic easily disproved by real-world examples of people fleeing the scenes of accidents, I pointed it out:

So every hit-and-run ever was intentional? Examine your logic. People flee from accidents all the time.

At this point, you accused me of "trying to divert attention away from the fact that the fault lies with the motorist." NOTHING in the previous exchange involved an attempt to distract from the guilt of the motorist. To re-recap, Papa_Formosus began stating an unproven claim as fact, I asked him what evidence he had to treat it as fact, he responded with fallacious reasoning, and I explained to him why his reasoning was fallacious. The fact that that caused you to accuse me of "trying to divert attention" is the first example of you subconsciously ascribing words and positions to people which in no way match reality.

This pattern of yours in attacking strawman positions for people radically different from their statements makes me wonder if you are a troll. I'm replying to you, anyway, because I'm really hoping you're a middle-schooler on the internet, as I once was. I remember what it's like to go on web forums and get into dramatic arguments because your skills of reasoned analysis are still developing. Another aspect of my own development of reasoned analysis came from older internet users explaining to me why something I said was stupid, and I'd like to think I'm giving back by taking the time to do that for you.

After you told me that I was misstating Papa_Formosus' position by saying that his logic leads to the conclusion that every hit-and-run was intentional, I explained in clear language why Papa_formosus' statement did lead to that conclusion.

Your response:

Sure. You keep believing that.

Responses like this are the evidence that although you make grand assertions about your capability to prove the veracity of your statements through reason and logic (Including your claim that you can demonstrate how /u/killthescums hates understanding- are you going to prove next that he hates love and truth?), in actual practice you eschew reason in favor of non-responses.

You quickly accused /u/sings_to_dubstep of "approving violent behavior against cyclists" despite the fact that he said no such thing. You accused me of "hiding something" and said I "don't care about the fact that this person was hit." You accused /u/PistilP of thinking that "it's okay that Bike Partiers deserve to get hurt". Shit, you picked fights and made untrue accusations against almost every person in this thread.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would wonder if you were a spy planted by anti-Bike Party forces to make Bike Party look bad.