AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Before you make a fool out of yourself. Here is YOUR post.

okie wrote:

Here is the post on the global warming thread a long time ago.

Diest TKO wrote:
okie wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

I don't contend that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. ....

T
K
O

I hope you made an error there, diest, as that shows you are really confused, more than I ever imagined.
...

What do you mean confused? Please reread.

"I don't contend..." meaning I wont argue with the following statement
"... the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth."

In short: Yeah, the sun provides energy to the earth. I know that, and I'm not going to argue against that idea.

You still need to retract your statements.

T
K
O

To repeat, admit it Diest, when you used the word, contend, you used it wrongly. Contend is to favor a position or view in opposition to an opposing view. If you had left out the word "don't," in front of the word "contend," then your statement would have been expressing your view accurately.

This is a test for you to demonstrate your ability to reason cogently, Diest.

RED added to help you find exactly where the information you need to read is located at. This should expedite the humility process.

T
K
O

0 Replies

If you contend something, you are maintaining or asserting something. Look it up.

0 Replies

mmmmmm Diest

Set and I just checked this one out. You might want to as well.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If you contend something, you are maintaining or asserting something. Look it up.

Wow! Big words. Now I have to take you seriously. Large font = authority.

As I've said, you can muddy the waters with another definition (I invited you to do just that) but you'd still fail to prove my definition wrong or prove that "to contend" most certainly can mean to struggle/argue/fight/dispute AGAINST.

You are being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the evidence I've put forth. Like I said, it would seem to me that your understanding of the word was limited to mean only a "struggle" for.

You stated that I have a hard time admitting when I was wrong, but when you first made this accusation, I took you very seriously, and looked into it...

Foxfyre wrote:

The word you may have intended was 'contest'; i.e. you do not contest that the sun. . . .

Diest TKO wrote:

I double checked because you seed of doubted me.

Sorry Fox, but I used the word properly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contend

Contend does not imply advocacy or agreement, quite oppositely it implies conflict or argument. One definition even listed "agree" as an antonym. Certainly "contest" would have also been correct though.

There isn't anything wrong with my phrasing.
K
O

It looks like I was very honest about multiple definitions being available. You two kept going though, and never acknowledged the definitions that supported my use of the word. I never needed to prove that to contend could never mean to struggle for/etc, I only needed to support my use. I did.

Interestingly, I looked back as well to the post that the controversial phrase was from. I had taken a great deal of time describing a SHM system to explain the reasons conceptually about why I a driving force in a system would not show itself linearly. If in this quest you've shown me any weakness about myself, it is that I am easily distracted by this type of games.

In retrospect, I should have just said "whatever" and grilled you two address the meat of my post. The fact that I even gave you two the benefit of the doubt and went to check out the validity of what you said, was a great gesture. When this happened, I responded with confusion, not contempt. Contempt came later when you assholes started to insult and get shitty. Ask if English was my first language, **** like that. To top that, I changed up my language as to clarify to keep things on track. YOU DENY THIS OKIE, yet you reposted the post where I did this. I failed to stay focused and let you drag me away from my good points and made be debate an ambiguous word (for months now), only to never have my points ever addressed. You didn't win, but I certainly lost. Twice now. Once in the other thread, and now here.

I am better than you, and I'm ashamed I lowered myself to your level. Again, in this thread where I was posting ideas that challenged your own, you baited me away from the issues you didn't want to talk about.

I came to this thread and I challenged the notions put forth by Fox, and instead of having my ideas met intellectually, I am told that I could not understand the ideas of Sowell, and therefore I could never argue against them. Intellectual cowardice, and shame on you.

I realize I proved myself right ages ago, but for whatever foolish reason, I was not content with just being right. If there is anything profound to be learned about this experience with you and the other yes-men and cheerleaders, it is that validation doesn't come from outside.

Since my maturity has also been assaulted, I'll take this opportunity to demonstrate the maturity that you old folk lack despite your age and experience. I'm done, and if you bring it up again, I'll just ignore it.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

--When we say most terrorists these days are Muslim, we aren't saying that Muslims are terrorists.

cjhsa wrote:

90% of Islamic Teachers are Terrorists

No you don't say that all of them are, you say that 90% are. The effective difference of these statements is trivial.

I think you don't know who the "we" you refer to is. I think you should look to your constituents before making your first statement.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:
If you contend something, you are maintaining or asserting something. Look it up.

Wow! Big words. Now I have to take you seriously. Large font = authority.

As I've said, you can muddy the waters with another definition (I invited you to do just that) but you'd still fail to prove my definition wrong or prove that "to contend" most certainly can mean to struggle/argue/fight/dispute AGAINST.
...
T
K
O

You used an object for your verb as a transitive verb, not as an intransitive verb, Diest. Your usage of the word, contend, had an object, in other words you contended something. You are taking one meaning that you have cherrypicked as if you had used the word intransitively, so you picked the synonym, argue, and then have applied it wrongly as if you argued against something. Sure if somebody is arguing or contending, if you leave out the object of what they are arguing, then it implies a conflict or against an opposing argument. You could have said, "I don't contend," or you might could have even said "I don't contend in regard to whether or not the sun contributes to the earths temperature," and you might have been technically correct in the way you would have used the word, but you used an object, you said you contended that....., which included the object.

So even if you use the word, argue, as a synonym, you ignore the fact that you can argue either for or against something, so argue tells us nothing about which side you are arguing, until an object is applied. The same is true in the usage of the word, contend. But if you contend that something happens, you have included an object of the verb, so it is inescapable Diest, you are advancing or maintaining that it does. That is the meaning of the word. If you leave out the object, your contention has no description, so it only implies a contention between two opposing views or possibilities.

http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/trnsintr.html

0 Replies

How pathetic has this line of conversation become! Laughing

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Fairly pathetic, but I have found this more fascinating to see just how far Diest will go with this, or just how long it will take for him to figure it out. This is in a sense, a test of one's ability to reason, and since this is not about politics, the correct answer should be able to be acknowledged. I am interested to see if any ability to reason or ability of acknowledgement can be coaxed out of Diest.

Again for Diest, the following are definitions of the word, contend. See the transitive use of the word, which is how you used it. That is your definition, as applied to your sentence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contend

intransitive verb
1 : to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties : struggle
2 : to strive in debate : argue
transitive verb
1 : maintain, assert <contended>
2 : to struggle for : contest

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Fairly pathetic, but I have found this more fascinating to see just how far Diest will go with this, or just how long it will take for him to figure it out.

Again for Diest, the following are definitions of the word, contend. See the transitive use of the word, which is how you used it. That is your definition, as applied to your sentence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contend

intransitive verb
1 : to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties : struggle
2 : to strive in debate : argue
transitive verb
1 : maintain, assert <contended>
2 : to struggle for : contest

Depends on who you ask.

con·tend (kn-tnd)
v. con·tend·ed, con·tend·ing, contends
v.intr.
1. To strive in opposition or against difficulties; struggle: armies contending for control of strategic territory; had to contend with long lines at the airport.
2. To compete, as in a race; vie.
3. To strive in controversy or debate; dispute. See Synonyms at discuss.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contend

Both of you are correct, the word contend can be used in several ways. Is it worth all this bitching, and dare I say, whining?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I won't play your games anymore you too. I outlined that clearly in my last post. I'm not surprised that you try regardless though.

Fox - Care to address cjhsa's post?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Agreed. Surely there is an English usage or grammar or language forum or something close to that on A2K where the syntax lesson can continue?

Meanwhile, Diest continues his 'vicitimization' mantra whenver his opinions are challenged with any kind of rationale, and here is the next syntax problem:

I wrote

Quote:

When we say that most Muslims are terrorists we are not saying that Muslims are terrorists.

CJ wrote

Quote:

90% of Islamic Teachers are Terrorists

Diest wrote

Quote:

No you don't say that all of them are, you say that 90% are. The effective difference of these statements is trivial.

I think you don't know who the "we" you refer to is. I think you should look to your constituents before making your first statement.

Anyone who has the intellectual honesty to characterize me honestly knows that I would never say what CJ said.

Anyone who has the intellectual honesty to characterize CJ honestly knows that he makes outrageous statements like that intended to be humor and/or provocative.

To lump CJ and me together in a common 'you' is dishonest on the face of it whether or not it was intended. This goes back to my original point that to state that a marble is red does not suppose that there are no other marbles, etc.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Fairly pathetic, but I have found this more fascinating to see just how far Diest will go with this, or just how long it will take for him to figure it out.

Again for Diest, the following are definitions of the word, contend. See the transitive use of the word, which is how you used it. That is your definition, as applied to your sentence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contend

intransitive verb
1 : to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties : struggle
2 : to strive in debate : argue
transitive verb
1 : maintain, assert <contended>
2 : to struggle for : contest

Depends on who you ask.

con·tend (kn-tnd)
v. con·tend·ed, con·tend·ing, contends
v.intr.
1. To strive in opposition or against difficulties; struggle: armies contending for control of strategic territory; had to contend with long lines at the airport.
2. To compete, as in a race; vie.
3. To strive in controversy or debate; dispute. See Synonyms at discuss.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contend

Both of you are correct, the word contend can be used in several ways. Is it worth all this bitching, and dare I say, whining?

Cycloptichorn

Proof that a liberal will defend another liberal, even when it is obvious the other liberal is wrong, obviously wrong.

If anybody thinks this is not pertinent to this thread, I would contend that they are wrong.

Interpret my last sentence, cyclops, what did I say?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Agreed. Surely there is an English usage or grammar or language forum or something close to that on A2K where the syntax lesson can continue?

My apologies, Foxfyre, but I think I demonstrated something for anyone that is intellectually honest, that a liberal will cling to any belief, no matter how wrong it can be demonstrated to be. I have a feeling it is a religious thing or something. And as cyclops demonstrated, and as others seemed to indicate, they all defend a fellow liberal, no matter how wrong and how obviously wrong they are.

I think the transitive and intransitive usages and definitions that I brought this morning pretty much nailed Diest to the wall, and he knows it, but he can't bring himself to admit anything, apparently.

0 Replies

Sorry Fox, but YOU choose the word "we," not me. Making such broad and general statements are far too risky, because you can't control what "we" will do, nor what "we" will think.

I didn't imply that you would say anything like that, so if you took it that way, it's you who are reciting a "victimization" mantra.

If you don't want to be included in the blow back, maybe you should only speak for yourself, and not a "we."

I'm not interested in your defense of cjhsa either.

Cyclo - Don't bother dude. Nothing will be gained by following that road. You're a powerful thinker, I'd rather see you use your intellect to point out the flaws in their mantra au politik.

T
K
O

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I think I demonstrated something for anyone that is intellectually honest, that a liberal will cling to any belief, no matter how wrong it can be demonstrated to be. I have a feeling it is a religious thing or something. And as cyclops demonstrated, and as others seemed to indicate, they all defend a fellow liberal, no matter how wrong and how obviously wrong they are.

Apparently Set and I aren't liberals when it comes to language Laughing

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Agreed. Surely there is an English usage or grammar or language forum or something close to that on A2K where the syntax lesson can continue?

My apologies, Foxfyre, but I think I demonstrated something for anyone that is intellectually honest, that a liberal will cling to any belief, no matter how wrong it can be demonstrated to be. I have a feeling it is a religious thing or something. And as cyclops demonstrated, and as others seemed to indicate, they all defend a fellow liberal, no matter how wrong and how obviously wrong they are.

I think the transitive and intransitive usages and definitions that I brought this morning pretty much nailed Diest to the wall, and he knows it, but he can't bring himself to admit anything, apparently.

Oh I know Okie. I just think when you run up against an intractable brick wall there comes a time to stop trying to run through it. Diest is not going to admit he was wrong and, as you point out, other liberals are not likely to take him to task for the error. So, he will continue to divert by taking offense at imaginary affronts and will continue to believe that it is conservative bullies beating up on him while not having to admit he was wrong about anything. And he feels free to commit the very crimes of which he accuses others.

Meanwhile CJ, as our intentionally maverick CJ is wont to do, makes an outrageous statement about Muslim teachers which gives the liberals license to dispute an assertion that saying a marble is red does not mean that all marbles are red.

This kind of dynamic encountered between you and Deist and this latest issue plus the trolls who drop in purely to make a snotty remark or deliver a personal insult is what makes having any kind of productive discussion so darn difficult.

I don't intend to give up trying just yet, however.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

okie wrote:
I think I demonstrated something for anyone that is intellectually honest, that a liberal will cling to any belief, no matter how wrong it can be demonstrated to be. I have a feeling it is a religious thing or something. And as cyclops demonstrated, and as others seemed to indicate, they all defend a fellow liberal, no matter how wrong and how obviously wrong they are.

Apparently Set and I aren't liberals when it comes to language

I noted your comment on the subject, but it was way too subtle for Deist to pick up on I think. And I can't be sure, but my past experience causes me to think that if Deist was a conservative, the comment would almost certainly not have been anywhere near as subtle.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
okie wrote:
I think I demonstrated something for anyone that is intellectually honest, that a liberal will cling to any belief, no matter how wrong it can be demonstrated to be. I have a feeling it is a religious thing or something. And as cyclops demonstrated, and as others seemed to indicate, they all defend a fellow liberal, no matter how wrong and how obviously wrong they are.

Apparently Set and I aren't liberals when it comes to language

I noted your comment on the subject, but it was way too subtle for Deist to pick up on I think. And I can't be sure, but my past experience causes me to think that if Deist was a conservative, the comment would almost certainly not have been anywhere near as subtle.

Translation: even in the face of countering evidence, I still stubbornly maintain my original position.

You will note, Fox, that I said:

Quote:

Both of you are correct, the word contend can be used in several ways.

I didn't take sides.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You're a bit of a sledge hammer yourself at times Laughing

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
okie wrote:
I think I demonstrated something for anyone that is intellectually honest, that a liberal will cling to any belief, no matter how wrong it can be demonstrated to be. I have a feeling it is a religious thing or something. And as cyclops demonstrated, and as others seemed to indicate, they all defend a fellow liberal, no matter how wrong and how obviously wrong they are.

Apparently Set and I aren't liberals when it comes to language

I noted your comment on the subject, but it was way too subtle for Deist to pick up on I think. And I can't be sure, but my past experience causes me to think that if Deist was a conservative, the comment would almost certainly not have been anywhere near as subtle.

Translation: even in the face of countering evidence, I still stubbornly maintain my original position.

You will note, Fox, that I said:

Quote:

Both of you are correct, the word contend can be used in several ways.

I didn't take sides.

Cycloptichorn

If you said Deist is correct in the way he used the word, you took a side.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know