< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7019 OF 7019 ·
|Apr-20-15|| ||Big Pawn: I've got to remember that this forum can't handle the big questions in life. I've got to remember to keep it simple so everyone can be happy and feel smart. |
So, with that in mind, let me bring this down a couple of notches:
Why do liberals have this big thing for sushi? Not all, but most. Why is that?
I have a conservative friend who eats sushi too, but even he realizes it's a liberal thing. We make jokes about it but he's a fat guy who loves to eat just about everything.
Point is: why do liberals have to go through this right of passage of sorts by eating sushi?
Let's talk about sushi.
|Apr-20-15|| ||Petrosianic: I never refuted it. I simply pointed out a fallacious supporting argument. You got so defensive, and went straight to the well with another fallacy (an ad hominem) rather than trying to defend your point that I concluded that you were so insecure in your views that it didn't pay to argue them. Every conversation I've seen since then has seemed to confirm that. I shudder to think what would have happened if I'd refuted it.|
|Apr-20-15|| ||Big Pawn: <Petrosianic: I never refuted it.>|
Ok, then what was I afraid of?
<You got so defensive, and went straight to the well with another fallacy (an ad hominem) >
Defensive over a statement you made that, in your words, "I never refuted it" had no teeth?
No, it's more like this: Your pride won't let you stop blabbing. The next thing you know your saying stupid things just to keep talking - like bringing up the genetic fallacy again and again (just for instance).
I've got no patience for disingenuous bull.
So what is your not-scary, not-refuting-the-argument statement?
Well, who cares...all that matters is you clearing things up by saying, <I didn't refute it.>
|Apr-20-15|| ||Big Pawn: <petrosianac>
You've got to realize that you are making no sense. You say on the one hand about the moral argument
1. <I never refuted it>
But then you say that you made statement that scared me away - a statement that showed,
2. <a fallacious supporting argument>
I don't know which supporting premise you are talking about (one or two), but it matters not because if one of them was <fallacious> then the whole argument is refuted!
So in one sentence your saying you never refuted the argument. In the other sentence you are saying that you pointed out the fallacies in the premises, which REFUTES the argument.
Go sit at "that" lunch table next to Epstein and Barbarino.
|Apr-20-15|| ||Jim Bartle: Ah, sweet nostalgia.|
|Apr-20-15|| ||Jim Bartle: <Go sit at "that" lunch table next to Epstein and Barbarino.>|
Not possible, I have the Epstein-Barr(barino) Virus.
|Apr-21-15|| ||Big Pawn: <Jim> You already sit at the table, between Washington and Horshack. Next step for you is to see Mr. Woodman.|
|Apr-21-15|| ||Check It Out: <Jim Bartle: The entertainment deficit on this page is rapidly being eliminated.>|
So you are saying that <!!>'s return to the Rogoff page makes it better?
|Apr-21-15|| ||Jim Bartle: That's Dr. Ronald Woodman, I assume, director of the Instituto Geofísico del Perú.|
|Apr-21-15|| ||al wazir: <Jim Bartle: CEOs and other executives make decisions which earn or lose many times their salary. So they may be deserved.> By that criterion the U.S. president, his cabinet, and even the feckless lawmakers in Congress are vastly underpaid. Is that what you believe?|
|Apr-21-15|| ||WannaBe: <al wazir> Errrr..... President and Cabinets and Congress do not get paid based upon Gross Domestic Product, or how the country is making money.|
Please let me know if the law have changed.
|Apr-21-15|| ||Jim Bartle: Of course not. They get paid when they leave govt. and become lobbyists.|
|Apr-21-15|| ||Shams: <Jim Bartle> Off topic: how long did it take you to roll your 'r's?|
|Apr-21-15|| ||Jim Bartle: I'll tell you when it happens.|
|Apr-21-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <!!: You agreed with the argument eventually. Remember you said I might "Choke on my tongue" when you admitted the argument was correct.>|
This is a misrepresentation that cannot pass.
I agreed with the premises from the beginning; I had already accepted the conclusion.
I hinted at this several times before making it explicit, but — and this is the point — I also pointed out that it doesn't *matter* if I agree with it or not.
The problem, as I also said from the start, is that your premises cannot be substantiated. (You don't like the "mathematical" term "proven," so I will accommodate you.)
This was pretty convincingly demonstrated when you couldn't persuade the forum to accept either premise.
There *are* alternative answers that most of your audience preferred as more plausible than the premises you offered, and you are not likely to change their minds (unless you count hardening them in their opposition to you).
And although I personally accept the truth of the premises, my opinion is nothing more than an opinion. I think it is the better part of wisdom sometimes to accept that there are things you simply can't evidentiate.
If I could prove to my satisfaction the existence of God using logic alone, I would not have been an atheist for 39 years. If I did not believe that some very important parts of existence *cannot* be understood using logic alone, I would still be one.
Incidentally, let me make it clear that this is not a signal to resume beating this deceased nag. I am correcting a false statement, not starting a conversation, and I will not reply to anything you say by way of trying to start such a conversation.
|Apr-21-15|| ||perfidious: <big liar: Point is: why do liberals have to go through this right of passage of sorts by eating sushi?>|
The word is 'rite', not 'right'.
Do not worship overlong at your great temple known as spell check. Use your head, just once.
|Apr-21-15|| ||hv.U.grwnup: <abdel irada > : <[big pawn], This was pretty convincingly demonstrated when you couldn't persuade the forum to accept either premise.>|
ok, i am not taking any side of the argument , it is just that i am in a place where <jim bartle> used to be so very often not long ago .
<what i don't understand is > (and the conundrum is likely to give me sleepless nights , so help please if any of you is compassionate) ... so <what i don't understand is > what does this phrase used by <abdel irada> means : <persuade the forum>. how do we conclude that forum has been persuaded ? when everyone in the forum says (or indicates by some other mean - may be telepathy ) they have been persuaded? or when the smartest people of the forum , namely <abdel irada> , and <abdel irada> and <abdel irada> and a few others say they have been persuaded or something else?
oh , this agonizing '<what i don't undertand>'!
|Apr-21-15|| ||HeMateMe: <Where are the cries of outrage? >|
It could be that 1) the Saudi pilots are poorly trained or their self maintenance training is bad, 2) the terrorists they were trying to kill were in the houses that were hit, or 3) the Saudis don't care about the collateral damage, as they don't have to face public opinion the way the USA or Europeans would have to, in similar circumstances.
|Apr-21-15|| ||OhioChessFan: <Off topic: how long did it take you to roll your 'r's? >|
It's just these high heels I'm wearing.
|Apr-21-15|| ||ljfyffe: <Attention:Canadian underground in US...Alanis
Morisette, Don Sutherland, Niel Young, Willian Shatner, Jim Carrie, and all the rest....> Code name: Operation" First We Take Newfoundland.
Then We Take America" is proceeding as planned. Tom Cruz, our chief undercover intelligence officer in Washington, has been placed in position to seize control of the so-called "Tea Party" in America.
The decline of the middle class there, and the working class disappointment at President Obama for bailing out the mortgage-business corporations owned by the wealthy instead of
saving ome-buyers, and the placing of national heathcare in the hands of wealthy insurance corporations has led to the formation of the grassroots movement. Its "no tax" platform quickly attracted the wealthy who promptly took contol of the movement. Our man Cruz with his contrived no-tax/no government spending rhetoric was an obvious choice for one of the party's presidential candidates. Attaching the Tea Party tail to wave the Republican elephant was a relatively simple operation. Political donations, unlimited as freedom of expression,
from high wealth in the US, and secretly channeled funds from Ottawa, has put Cruz in the
political spotlight without in anyway exposing his real mission, the annexation of "the
States" to Canada. Destroy this message, and await further instructions.|
|Apr-21-15|| ||ljfyffe: PS...to all agents, and sleeping cell members ...keep the Democrat Hillary's
French-Canadien ancestry under wraps...she may come in useful if the CIA is able to unearth our mole within the Republican Party.|
|Apr-21-15|| ||ljfyffe: Corrections: Ted Cruz, home owners, control|
|Apr-21-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <ljfyffe>: To save time, you should compile your typos and present them in a weekly errata report.|
|Apr-21-15|| ||hv.U.grwnup: <OhioChessFan: <Off topic: how long did it take you to roll your 'r's? >
It's just these high heels I'm wearing.>
<what i don'y understand is > what all this means. first i did not understand 'roll your r's' but then i googled and found out that spanish speak 'r' differently (rolling them). and now <what i don't understand is > what does "It's just these high heels I'm wearing" mean. how can high heels help learning to roll 'r'?
help please. HELP PLEEEEASE.
|Apr-21-15|| ||Petrosianic: <Big Pawn>: <You've got to realize that you are making no sense.>|
Well, it only makes sense if you have some grasp of logic. Busting an argument doesn't disprove the argument's claim. If I said "The world is round because Carlsen says so", and you pointed out that that was an ad verecundiam fallacy, you would not have disproven the claim that the world was round. You'd merely have showed that one particular way of reaching that conclusion was unsound. It's kind of complicated, so I don't blame you for being confused.
I also never said we were talking about the Moral Argument. You may think that that's the only subject you have any interest in, but you've had innumerable diversions that you're not aware of. Like right now, for example. We're not talking about the Moral Argument, we're talking about your fear of dissenting views. You've let your mind wander again.
<I've got no patience for disingenuous bull.>
I thought as much! You cowardly liberals always run for the hills when made to wriggle in the crushing grip of reason. <(does a Funky Chicken dance to celebrate the great victory he's won over Big Pawn in this discussion!)>
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7019 OF 7019 ·