Ladies and Girlie men

Yeah but we have pictures Kicky. And we're not too proud to resort to blackmail.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Yeah but we have pictures Kicky. And we're not too proud to resort to blackmail.

0 Replies

I'm not real sure you've chosen wisely. :wink:

Setanta wrote:

There is no ad hominem in that post . . . although i doesn't surprise me that you would rather have the conversation at that level.

That's funny, considering any literate, open-minded person who reads this thread will see that the Ad Hominem exchange began with your Ican, then Karzak comparisons (2 people you splashed, who aren't even here, btw). You volunteered to be counted with the hyper partisan and have since decided it's too big of insult to bear. Laughing

Not too big of an insult to throw at me, though. Laughing

(don't worry; I'm no girly man). I hadn't said a single thing that could be considered disrespectful let alone insulting until you shamelessly jumped on me for calling you "my friend". All the while you were escalating this exchange 2 steps ahead of me, you were trying to maintain that I was behaving hysterically and telling me to get a grip. Laughing

If you haven't got the good sense to be ashamed of yourself, I can't help you. But I will continue to point out the idiotic way you've carried yourself for as long as you continue to try to blame it on me. Idea

You got that?

Strawman You seem to enjoy throwing this accusation out there, but I'm starting to think you've forgotten the meaning. Here's a little refresher, before we continue:

Quote:

One can set up a straw man in several different ways:
1. Present only a portion of your opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that you have refuted all of their arguments.
2. Present your opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted the original.
3. Present a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted your opponent's actual position.
4. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute their arguments, and pretend that you've refuted every argument for that position.
5. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that that person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

NOW let's reconstruct your Strawman accusation.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Put the gropinator out of your minds for a moment and I wonder how many of you hyper-partisan folks would be forced to switch sides.

(this is when you volunteered, btw)

Setanta wrote:

Hyper-partisan? Have you been studying under the tutelage of Ican on how to raise the hysteria level in political debate?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Nope. Is there a better explanation for why liberal democrats are now arguing to prevent increased rights for immigrants, while staunch conservatives argue to increase them?

Notice There is no Strawman there. (You may also notice the non-partisan "Gropinator joke" and the laughing emoticon.) Now let's examine the careful construction of a real Strawman, shall we?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Nope. Is there a better explanation for why liberal democrats are now arguing to prevent increased rights for immigrants, while staunch conservatives argue to increase them?
YOU jumped all the way to:

you imaginatively wrote:
Denying rights to immigrants?

And then, before I had even responded, you jumped again to

you even more imaginatively wrote:
Hardly a case for contending that one discriminates against immigrants--but you carry on O'Bill, i wouldn't want to rain on your parade.

As you can see. What YOU did there was build a textbook Strawman, and then deny it even while hurling false accusations of building one at me. Laughing

Now lets get back to that same post because this really is telling.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

To which I responded:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Set- Please, you know better than that. I'm not crying discrimination. I'm pointing out that the sides seem to be askew on this one

Which, of course, remains true. You called discrimination into this, not I. I merely commented on it as a "curious aside", because I found your "doesn't come up often so it's not discrimination" argument feeble... and still do. It still doesn't matter IF you discriminate against folks for one office or 1 million offices; discrimination is discrimination. And, I still haven't accused anyone of discriminating anyway, so that remains a "curious aside".

The fact remains that the liberal "left" are usually more interested in increasing immigrant's rights than the hated "right". So anyone, from either side, who continues to voice opinions that are contrary to their standard ideology, continues to display their hyper partisanship. And that, my friend, is all I said in the first place.

Notice: It was right after I clearly demonstrated the falseness of YOUR Strawman tactics that referring to you as "my friend" became unbearable. Are you getting this yet?

Next

Setanta wrote:

the fact that no one has tabled the notion in Congress is evidence of how little it apparently really matters to those who have brought the idea up--so, i don't for a moment consider this an ideological issue. You're creating this out of whole cloth, and i think largely to have something to argue about.

I give you Orrin Hatch, and a link to him doing this very thing, and after ignoring it in favor of Non-Topic related Ad Hominem responses, not once but twice, you come back with

Setanta wrote:

One swallow does not a summer make--and Orrin Hatch does not speak for all "staunch conservatives."

As if I had ever said he did. What was the definition for that kind of argument again? Laughing

Setanta wrote:

You erected straw men about "liberal democrats" and "staunch conservatives."

I've already demonstrated the falseness of this charge.
Interestingly, though, a close examination of your next two statements will help us to further clarify what a Strawman really is. I'm taking the liberty of bolding some of your words to help you find some key components to YOUR STRAWMEN.

Setanta wrote:

I have no reason to assume that members of either vague groupings have universal ideas regarding the extension of rights to immigrants, and i in fact contend that there are no such identifiable universal opinions held.

This folks, is a textbook variety Strawman. Keep setting them up and knocking them down. Laughing

Setanta wrote:

You have not provided the definition of these groups, let alone supported, even anecdotally, the contention that each group has a monolithic attitude toward immigrants.

Yet another Strawman even as you continue to falsely accuse me of building them. Laughing

Setanta wrote:

So far, the most you have offered is to continue to assert that i know you're right (far from it, i think you have deluded yourself--first briefly, and then resolutely to support your "argument"), and to suggest inferentially thereby, that i'm being willfully dishonest because i'm "hyper-partisan."

Careful, you're getting close to doing it again. I've specifically acknowledged that you haven't taken a side in the initial argument AND have demonstrated how and where you volunteered to be counted with the hyperpartisan. (And, frankly, I'm flat out amazed that you don't realize I am right I'm not faking that :wink: )

Setanta wrote:

I resent that, and i resent your contention that this is about me "ramroding [sic] . . . Ad Hominem attack" against you; i greatly resent that i was foolish enought to think that you'd be cordial in disagreement, but apparently, your devotion to your partisan point of view is too strong.

Again, review the thread and see if you can pick out who decided not to be cordial in disagreement (Hint: pay particular attention to the area before your phony sounding, half hearted apology. Idea

)

Setanta wrote:

This about me calling your hand when you've got a pair, and acting as though you had a royal flush.

I play a lot of poker and I'll happily play my pair against your 7-high any day of the week. I live to call bluffs. Especially when they're this obvious. :wink:

Setanta wrote:

To repeat, you have no case.

All evidence to the contrary, but you go on believing that if you must. Carry on. :cool:

0 Replies

Well, Kerry doesn't look like a girlie man, but his wife sure does.

0 Replies

I made statements, the tone for which i apologized. I'll not apologize again. It appears to me that you are unaware of the nature of an ad hominem argument. Were i to say that Bill said "blah-blah" but that we all know that Bill eats poop sandwiches and howls at the moon, so he must be wrong--that would constitute an ad hominem, because rather than address the flaws in the argument, i would have attacked you on a personal basis.

But i didn't do that. From the outset, i have pointed out three signal flaws in your arguments. The first is that you have constructed strawmen, whose names are "liberal democrats" and "staunch conservatives." You were the one who chose to use terms in the plural, and, with no more precise definition or indication, one must assume that you refer to the millions, perhaps tens of millions of persons routinely referred to in political discussions here as liberals and conservatives. That being the case, we get to flaw number two--you have asserted that these two strawmen have equivalent and dichotomous ideological points of view with regard to the extension of rights to immigrants, which apply in all cases, except the case of the Governator. Citing Orrin Hatch is meaningless unless you can demostrate beyond refutation that Orrin Hatch speaks for all "staunch conservatives" at all times in all matters--which you have not done, and which i submit you cannot do. The third flaw you have built into your argument is the final thesis, which is to say that comments about amending the constitution to allow the election of the foreign born to the office of President is evidence of "hyper-partisanship."

You continue to demonstrate a feeble rhetorical ability, because you accuse me of using strawmen when i describe how you have employed them.

I do not contend that there are any identifiable groups such as "liberal democrats" and "staunch conservatives" about whom one is able to make global statememts in regard to their ideology. You provided that bit of nonsense, therefore they are your strawmen. You have stated that these putative groups are displaying "hyper-partisanship" because they are taking positions in opposition to their normal ideological stances, i.e., that all "liberal democrats" favor the extension of rights to immigrants in all cases except this, and that all "staunch conservatives" are opposed to the extension of rights to immigrants, except in this particular case. To that extent, you are inferentially alleging that both sides have a monolithic ideological position on rights for immigrants, which they traduce in the matter of the amendment of the constitution, and that this is evidence of "hyper-partisan" positions on their part.

Your last two posts convince me that you are way out of your league in such a debate, as you have failed to demonstrate that i have attacked you rather than your argument (comments on your style may be unpleasant to you, but that does not alter that i have attacked the content of what passes here for your argument), and therefore, your remarks about ad hominem attacks is meaningless. You seem to display a good deal of confusion about what a strawman is as well, in that i was criticizing the paucity of your argument, and you are the one who has posited two groups, again, tediously, "liberal democrats" and "staunch conservatives" who hold equal and dichotomous views with regard to rights for immigrants. That you would argue without understanding the reasonable inferences and implications of your argument does not speak well for your ability to debate others with much hope of success. You have offered Orrin Hatch as the only evidence for your hopelessly flawed thesis, therefore you have failed to support it. The point is crucial because you did not say one staunch conservative, you said staunch conservatives, which is plural and you have imposed on yourself with the plural a burden of proof which you have failed to meet.

If you are amazed that i don't acknowledge that your are right, your amazement stems from your having fooled yourself--in fact, you are wrong.

0 Replies

I've just now re-read you last nasty post. There was nothing phoney about my apology. Were i to offer an apology today, it would be phoney, because i have lost all regard for you. It was genuine at the time i offered the apology, because i genuinely cared not to have offended you needlessly. Your insistence on defending what can only be characterized as a self-evidenly stupid argument, and taking a condescending tone to me in the process leads me to regret that i ever thought well of you here. I know nothing of you outside of this forum. I cannot comment upon, and have not commented upon your personally. I have and will continue to comment on what you post here. What you have posted here is an egregious appeal to strawmen, which will continue to be strawmen unless and until you can support your statements about what "liberal democrats" and "staunch conservatives" believe about the extension of rights to immigrants. I continue to resent that you're trying to weasel out of a defending a silly position by diverting the debate to a discussion of ad hominems. For however unpleasant my tone was at any time, the fact remains that you have presented a hopelessly flawed contention, which you have failed to support, and that you have continually chanted that you are right and that i know it and won't admit it, as though that were some magical mantra which will make nonsense into rhetorical logic. It won't.

You have no case.

0 Replies

I hate to inject this, but most of the time what is right and what is wrong is blatently obvious. I find that the left/liberal side of the house tends to ignore the obvious and erect "strawmen" that twist logic to their incorrect views.

The most obvious of these being that I shouldn't be rewarded for hard work, that if I become wealthy through it, that I should be forced to share my good fortune with others who for whatever reason haven't been as successful. As if I'm not doing that already, I just want to pick who I share with.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I hate to inject this, but most of the time what is right and what is wrong is blatently obvious. I find that the left/liberal side of the house tends to ignore the obvious and erect "strawmen" that twist logic to their incorrect views.

The most obvious of these being that I shouldn't be rewarded for hard work, that if I become wealthy through it, that I should be forced to share my good fortune with others who for whatever reason haven't been as successful. As if I'm not doing that already, I just want to pick who I share with.

I could put up a good argument for both sides. Which one do you want to hear first?

0 Replies

Damned ol' Sophist . . .

0 Replies

I LOVE THIS THREAD!

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

I could put up a good argument for both sides. Which one do you want to hear first?

Don't care, just as long as you use pure logic. Wink

Even Spock realized the fallicy in his statement "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one."

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/nph-spock

0 Replies

Crap...dinner's on the go, I am soooo into the Spock fallacy. Right up my alley. Smile

Be back later (I hate internet abbreviations.)

0 Replies

set and bill, you two are making me read way too much. if, in the immediate future i should need eyeglasses, i'll be expecting the both of you to to reimburse me.

Mad

see, i'm squinting already......

0 Replies

See what you've done now? Mad

Kicky is enjoying himself... I hate it when that happens.

LMAO Set, that little bit of word play is all you have left and you're going to stick with it, eh? Laughing

Plural= 2 or more... add McG to Orrin Hatch, and Hobitbob to BPB and you've got 2 Liberal Democrats and 2 Staunch Conservatives. Get it?

Your fantasy that I'm somehow obligated to identify traits that every single member (of any group) share is the most absurd Strawman of all. (Think about how ridiculous of a request that is for a minute. Rolling Eyes

)

In a feeble last ditch effort you wrote:

You were the one who chose to use terms in the plural, and, with no more precise definition or indication, one must assume that you refer to the millions, perhaps tens of millions of persons routinely referred to in political discussions here as liberals and conservatives.

Nope. One must assume that only if one is feebly grasping at ways to support their absurd contentions. Otherwise one can easily allow for plural to mean more than one which, of course, IT DOES. Laughing

Your continued use of the "you hurt my feelings" strategy is shameless. You started this fight. You escalated this fight. And, the first time you employed that shameless strategy you did indeed hurt my feelings. You hurt me once Shame on you! Hurt me twice? Would be shame on me too bad you lost the stature to do so after you did it once. That doesn't mean I don't like you I most definitely do. But clearly, you have a penchant for losing your composure when your incredible gifts don't reward you with the easy victories you're accustomed to. Tough luck. Regard me how you will. Your feeble word play is indicative of how cartoonish your argument is to begin with. (Yep, even while you employ your startling talent for using the language).

Ps. If you can't see that spending as much time as you have criticizing my lesser ability to express myself is Ad Hominem, that further demonstrates your penchant for losing your composure. I assure you your excess is quite obvious.

0 Replies

That certainly is a word game you're playing. Plural, unless otherwise qualified, as you've used the terms, means all liberal democrats, and all staunch conservatives. But you just wiggle away--however, your nonsense will still be there. I don't contend that you are "obligated to identify traits that every single member (of any group) share," you have put the onus on yourself by saying that liberal democrats think one way, and stuanch conservatives think a diametrically opposed way. You didn't say some, or a few, you just said liberal democrats and staunch conservatives. Now i'm starting to feel sorry for your because you've twisted yourself up in your seeming inability to make a coherent statement about other people's political statements. This Orrin Hatch plus McG makes two and that's a plural is the most feeble crap you've injected into your argument so far. If that's the best you can come up with, then you are left asserting that Hatch and McG, and Hatch and McG alone, are guilty of the hyper-partisan behavior you decry. Were you to find a dozen more, and a dozen "on the other side," you would have accomplished nothing--you would only have made a conjectural statement about the possible "hyper-partisan" outlook of an insignificant number of people. No one reading here is stupid enough to buy the contention that all you ever meant was that Orrin Hatch and McG meet your standard for hyper-partisan. You really either have little respect for those who read here, or haven't sufficient respect for your own honesty and intellect to admit that you made an off-hand, unsupported and unsupportable contention about two huge classes of people, called liberal democrats and staunch conservatives. You have never since been able to back up your claims, so you try to make out that i'm playing a word game with you. No game at all--i picked apart a careless, and i strongly suspect, thoughtless remark you made; and which i suspect you made for partisan motives, although i certainly cannot know that.

Quote:

Your continued use of the "you hurt my feelings" strategy is shameless. You started this fight. You escalated this fight. And, the first time you employed that shameless strategy you did indeed hurt my feelings. You hurt me once Shame on you! Hurt me twice? Would be shame on me too bad you lost the stature to do so after you did it once. That doesn't mean I don't like you I most definitely do. But clearly, you have a penchant for losing your composure when your incredible gifts don't reward you with the easy victories you're accustomed to. Tough luck. Regard me how you will. Your feeble word play is indicative of how cartoonish your argument is to begin with. (Yep, even while you employ your startling talent for using the language).

This is simply disgusting. You display here a pathetic lack of social skills and judgment. I can only hope this is not your common style.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That certainly is a word game you're playing.

I don't know if you're being dishonest or if you're being blinded by stubbornness, but it's time to pay the piper. :wink:

Setanta wrote:

Plural, unless otherwise qualified, as you've used the terms, means all liberal democrats, and all staunch conservatives.

Says you... and I'm confident, only you. Dude, that's just silly. Here's the original statement:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Is there a better explanation for why liberal democrats are now arguing to prevent increased rights for immigrants, while staunch conservatives argue to increase them?

Now watch:

Kids are now playing in the yard.
Carpenters are now working on the house.
Doctors are now afraid of lawyers.
Idiots are winning seats in congress.

Notice:Each of these statement simply means more than one, just like mine. No distinction is made between two and all. :wink:

Setanta wrote:

But you just wiggle away--however, your nonsense will still be there. I don't contend that you are "obligated to identify traits that every single member (of any group) share," you have put the onus on yourself by saying that liberal democrats think one way, and stuanch conservatives think a diametrically opposed way.

Back to fantasy land, eh? You've imagined that too. Please stop making definitions up. (And, if you want anyone to believe your BS, you should at least make up defintions that don't require accepting such absurd extremes. :wink: )

Setanta wrote:

You didn't say some, or a few, you just said liberal democrats and staunch conservatives.

Above, I didn't say some, or a few kids either. Will you maintain now that "Kids are now playing in the yard" means all kids because I didn't say some, or a few? Rolling Eyes

How about with the carpenters or doctors or idiots? You are so far off now there will be no recovery... sorry. By the way, I could have clipped you on this earlier, but decided to wait partly because you presented such an abundance of soft spots and part in hopes you'd hang yourself... which you've now done (just like you did with the Phoenix sillyness earlier :wink: )

Setanta wrote:

Now i'm starting to feel sorry for your because you've twisted yourself up in your seeming inability to make a coherent statement about other people's political statements.

You are feeling sorry for me... for those reasons... LMAO... really.

Setanta wrote:

This Orrin Hatch plus McG makes two and that's a plural is the most feeble crap you've injected into your argument so far.

Well, you know what they say: One man's "most feeble crap" is the rest of the world's dictionary-backed fact. Laughing

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary wrote:

Main Entry: plu·ral
Pronunciation: 'plur-&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French plurel, from Latin pluralis, from plur-, plus more -- more at PLUS
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a class of grammatical forms usually used to denote more than one or in some languages more than two
2 : relating to, consisting of, or containing more than one or more than one kind or class <a plural society>

Setanta wrote:

If that's the best you can come up with, then you are left asserting that Hatch and McG, and Hatch and McG alone, are guilty of the hyper-partisan behavior you decry.

Yet another unsupportable conclusion. Where do you come up with this nonsense?
Watch again:
Kids are now playing in the yard. Could be 2. Could be all of them. The really crucial part is that more than one is... because then the statement is true. (Your silly word play failed)

Setanta wrote:

Were you to find a dozen more, and a dozen "on the other side," you would have accomplished nothing--you would only have made a conjectural statement about the possible "hyper-partisan" outlook of an insignificant number of people.

Sorry Setanta. You can't make up definitions to make your points if you want people to believe them. Your made up, unsubstantiated definition here is absurd. :wink:

Setanta wrote:

No one reading here is stupid enough to buy the contention that all you ever meant was that Orrin Hatch and McG meet your standard for hyper-partisan.

No one reading here is stupid enough to buy your ridiculous definition Set. I never contended that all I ever meant was Orrin Hatch and McG. Now you are even failing in your intellectually dishonest wordplay. Rolling Eyes

I'd have let you off the hook by now if you weren't so insulting, btw.

Setanta wrote:

You really either have little respect for those who read here, or haven't sufficient respect for your own honesty and intellect to admit that you made an off-hand, unsupported and unsupportable contention about two huge classes of people, called liberal democrats and staunch conservatives.

I have a great deal of respect for the readers of this thread including you. Not much on this thread (for you)... but I'm sure you are going to shred me the next time our positions are reversed (right/wrong wise, that is :wink: ). Oh, and it's not often people doubt my "respect for my own honesty and intellect"... that's a picture of me you see to the left and I vary rarely edit a post. What makes you think you'd know better than I, not to mention Webster what MY words mean? In this case, my words are pretty simple and if you aren't deliberately misinterpreting them, you are going to be pretty embarrassed when you figure it out.

Lets examine your foolish wordplay once more and put this to bed once and for all:

Setanta wrote:

Plural, unless otherwise qualified, as you've used the terms, means all liberal democrats, and all staunch conservatives.

How can you even make a statement like that without realizing you are trying to employ wordplay instead of trying to understand the meaning of my words? I know you really want to believe that, really bad, because your feeble argument depends on it being true, but it simply isn't.

It looks pretty convincing the way you put it, but if you look at the actual statement; your ridiculously self-serving definition is exposed:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Is there a better explanation for why liberal democrats are now arguing to prevent increased rights for immigrants, while staunch conservatives argue to increase them?

By your absurd definition; I would be suggesting that EVERY liberal democrat is arguing to prevent increased rights for immigrants, while EVERY staunch conservative is arguing to increase them. So by your absurd definition EVERYONE from both camps is arguing. Rolling Eyes

How many people do you really think are stupid enough to believe that is what I really meant? As opposed to what I actually said? Laughing

I quote this next paragraph only to justify my smugness, because yours, while imagining you'd made a point, was quite apparent. Cool

Setanta wrote:

You have never since been able to back up your claims, so you try to make out that i'm playing a word game with you. No game at all--i picked apart a careless, and i strongly suspect, thoughtless remark you made; and which i suspect you made for partisan motives, although i certainly cannot know that.

I've backed up my claims in spades.

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
Your continued use of the "you hurt my feelings" strategy is shameless. You started this fight. You escalated this fight. And, the first time you employed that shameless strategy you did indeed hurt my feelings. You hurt me once Shame on you! Hurt me twice? Would be shame on me too bad you lost the stature to do so after you did it once. That doesn't mean I don't like you I most definitely do. But clearly, you have a penchant for losing your composure when your incredible gifts don't reward you with the easy victories you're accustomed to. Tough luck. Regard me how you will. Your feeble word play is indicative of how cartoonish your argument is to begin with. (Yep, even while you employ your startling talent for using the language).

This is simply disgusting. You display here a pathetic lack of social skills and judgment. I can only hope this is not your common style.

It is?

I do?

Get over yourself man. Idea

0 Replies

pueo wrote:

set and bill, you two are making me read way too much. if, in the immediate future i should need eyeglasses, i'll be expecting the both of you to to reimburse me.

see, i'm squinting already......

Sorry dude.

0 Replies

How pathetic that you are attempting to cling to a disingenuous claim that you only meant two, and you only meant two "staunch conservatives." You've only come up with this marlarkey recently, but you're clinging to it like a life raft. If you don't mean only Hatch and McG, then who do you mean? How many "liberal democrats" and "staunch conservatives" do you refer to? Without precision, your statement is meaningless. If you were not referring to every liberal democrat and every staunch conservative, your lack of further qualification simply beggars what is to begin with a riduculous attempt to create a definition of two dichotomous ideologies.

Your loony statement about "hyper-partisan" behavior can only make sense if you had a global definition in mind. As you now insist that it might have been two, it might have been a few, that the number is unspecified (and i've always contended that your terms were imprecise, it was a criticism at the outset), then you've not established a reasonable basis for your subsequent statement about the "hyper-partisan." You throw out a crappy argument, and then backpedal furiously because you're called on it.

I'm not a "Dude," and i resent your snide use of a term of familiarity. For your further edification, as it appears that you only refer to dictionaries when attempting to prop up your feeble arguments, saying that i resent something does not necessarily mean my feelings are hurt. My contempt for you at this point is to great to have any anguish over your rambling, stumbling attempts to justify your ridiculous statement, and to attempt to portray yourself as the morally pure victim of an unwarranted assault.

Your argument is crap, and your behavior is characterized by puerile petulance. You make an unsupportable claim, and you are become enraged that your nonsense has been picked apart. Get over it, Dude.

0 Replies

Setanta, this is a riot. Did you even read what I wrote?

Setanta wrote:

How pathetic that you are attempting to cling to a disingenuous claim that you only meant two, and you only meant two "staunch conservatives."

That is the opposite of what I not just attempted but PROVED. You said, and continue to say below, that plural statements if not specified mean all. I PROVED they do not... specifically pointing out for the retarded that I do not mean 2. Watch again.

"Athletes are now using steroids."

Again; the statement is true, it doesn't mean 2 and it doesn't meant all... Your ridiculously self-serving definition is absurd, and for you to not have gotten that in my multiple examples last post tells me you either didn't read it or you no longer care about the truth.

Setanta wrote:

You've only come up with this marlarkey recently, but you're clinging to it like a life raft.

I better be careful with the quotes because that only makes sense when pointed at your posts.

Setanta wrote:

If you don't mean only Hatch and McG, then who do you mean? How many "liberal democrats" and "staunch conservatives" do you refer to?

Some. Since I couldn't possibly know precisely how many there are of each; I simply used plural. Idea

Setanta wrote:

Without precision, your statement is meaningless. If you were not referring to every liberal democrat and every staunch conservative, your lack of further qualification simply beggars what is to begin with a riduculous attempt to create a definition of two dichotomous ideologies.

Only in the eyes of someone who makes up definitions to fulfill his needs when the falseness of his argument is exposed.
Watch again:
'Paul is tall.' Notice, I didn't say how tall, but that doesn't mean the tallest.
I'll never run out of real life examples where your absurd definition falls on its face. Plus, they are kind of fun try it! No, wait, I have a killer example:

Brett Favre is now loved and adored. Hmmm. Does that mean by a) 2 people, b) all people, c) some people? d) the statement is imprecise, so the logical thing to do would be to make up some idiotic definition that means all, even though it doesn't really say that. What do you think? Laughing

d) is worth a shot right? I mean, hell, if you get away with it for a couple of posts then your idiotic, made up definition will be true, right? Laughing

Setanta wrote:

Your loony statement about "hyper-partisan" behavior can only make sense if you had a global definition in mind.

No, sorry, that's not true either Setanta. Inventive, convenient, but made up nonsense cut from the same exaggeration-and-extreme-promotion cloth nonetheless.

Setanta wrote:

As you now insist that it might have been two, it might have been a few, that the number is unspecified (and i've always contended that your terms were imprecise, it was a criticism at the outset), then you've not established a reasonable basis for your subsequent statement about the "hyper-partisan." You throw out a crappy argument, and then backpedal furiously because you're called on it.

Setanta, when people are referring to multiple people, but couldn't possibly know the exact number, they use plural terms. True or false?
Not refuting all of your idiotic statements simultaneously is not backpedaling. The alternative is these long posts, that address every word, and frankly, I didn't think they were going to be necessary because my original point was easy enough for a child to understand... so how long could it be to explain it? Enter Setanta who attempts to pretend imprecise plurals are automatically promoted to the most extreme meanings. All, diametrically opposed, monolithic, etc are not what normal people think of when they encounter vague or imprecise terms. Laughing

Your contention to the contrary is beyond idiotic, even while you continue to insult me for using simple English.

Setanta wrote:

I'm not a "Dude," and i resent your snide use of a term of familiarity. For your further edification, as it appears that you only refer to dictionaries when attempting to prop up your feeble arguments, saying that i resent something does not necessarily mean my feelings are hurt. My contempt for you at this point is to great to have any anguish over your rambling, stumbling attempts to justify your ridiculous statement, and to attempt to portray yourself as the morally pure victim of an unwarranted assault.

My, how transparent is that? I refer to a dictionary, and usually a thesaurus too, most every time I encounter a word I don't understand. I'll grant you; I don't have as rich of vocabulary as you (few do), so I probably do so more often. I also refer to the dictionary and thesaurus when someone challenges the meaning of a word I've used. TRY THAT and see how foolish your absurd contentions here are.

Setanta wrote:

Your argument is crap, and your behavior is characterized by puerile petulance. You make an unsupportable claim, and you are become enraged that your nonsense has been picked apart. Get over it, Dude.

My argument is as solid as concrete, and my behavior is a reflection of your own. Minus the shrillness and whining, of course, about terms of familiarity, even while employing them yourself. Worry not. I only got offended once. I've since been amazed and amused by your lack of composure and idiotic, desperate definitions. Laughing

Complaining that I use dictionaries to define words instead of some fantasy definition you've dreamed up is hoot. I triple dog dare you to try and substantiate your definitions with any source whatsoever. ANY SOURCE.

0 Replies

Ladies and Girlie men

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know