Case in point:
It has been asserted that games have significant influence on people's behaviour. If that is true, than Jack Thompson is correct.
Except, of course, that you're both mischaracterizing the argument being made (that games and media as a whole influence perceptions of self-worth), AND counting on on us to assume that because Thompson is right about some things (and most people are right about at least a few things) that he is, by virtue of our argument, right about a variety of claims from which you cannot logically arrive through what we've presented.
In essence, you are intentionally misleading people. That is not a logical argument. That is not reductio ad absurdum.
Yes, Thompson is right about the fact that games can have influences on people. He is not right about what those influences are, or how powerful they are, or the behaviour the invoke, or how they do it, or even the fucking content of the games he criticizes. But you are clearly insinuating that if he's right (by misconstruing both his stance, in degree, and the stance your comparing it to, in kind) about anything then BY GOD he must be right about everything and aren't we stupid!
You're a lying, deceptive asshole, and you've admitted that you're doing it intentionally. Shape up, or shove off, and stop ... trolling? Is this actually trolling, for once? I guess it depends on what you're actually hoping to get out of your bullshit 'arguments', though...
What DO you hope to get out of mischaracterizing other people's arguments and intentionally applying erroneous hyperbole? Is this supposed to serve a purpose
other than pissing people off?