Facts versus opinions and values. A primer for a post-fact society.

@livinglava,

Quote:

Most everything you post appears very confused.

You couldn't think of anything logical to say, so you used the children tactic and repeated the accusation back? At least I had the decency to explain the confusion you were causing.

Though perhaps you are still confusing yourself by re-engaging in your habits of dishonesty, and avoidance of logic that you used in other threads....like how you just avoided (in the post this replies to) that you were saying the same thing I was saying, over and over, even while objecting to what I said.

Quote:

Facts are facts.

We agree.

Quote:

You are going off on a discussion tandem about professional commonalities and differences, but if you want to discuss that, why don't you start a different thread?

You object to a singular observation I make, how people interpret facts - using politicians as an example - which is very relevant to the discussion of facts vs opinion....then over multiple posts object while essentially saying the same things I said...and in your mind it is I who is going off on the tangent?

It must be very tangled in there.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

You object to a singular observation I make, how people interpret facts - using politicians as an example....then confuse yourself over multiple posts by saying the same things I said while somehow objecting...and in your mind it is I who is going off on the tangent?

It must be very tangled in there.

It's interesting how you think people have to share the same profession to understand each other, yet you somehow think you can understand me and that I should be able to understand you.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

It's interesting how you think people have to share the same profession to understand each other, yet you somehow think you can understand me and that I should be able to understand you.

Are you being intellectually dishonest again, or simply dense? I said your example made for a poor comparison - and explained why. I didn't say "you think people have to share the same profession to understand each other"

I also pointed out your example didn't negate what I said...to which you've not replied, but you still wish to pursue your tangent.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Are you being intellectually dishonest again, or simply dense? I said your example made for a poor comparison - and explained why. I didn't say "you think people have to share the same profession to understand each other"

I also pointed out your example didn't negate what I said...to which you've not replied, but you still wish to pursue your tangent.

Maybe you're right after all that we can't understand each other because we don't share the same profession. Or maybe I'm just 'dense' or 'dishonest,' as you say. I guess it all depends on which of us is a politician.

I'm sure you will reply once again to get the last word, but I'm not sure why you would bother with someone so 'dense,' 'dishonest,' and 'different,' as you seem to regard me. Maybe you just like getting the last word in regardless.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Maybe you're right after all that we can't understand each other because we don't share the same profession

I never said such, and called you out of claiming I said such...so, you answered the question - you are engaging in deliberate intellectual dishonesty. I'm sure your God has noted that in his/her ledger.

Quote:

I'm sure you will reply once again to get the last word,

- you raised the objection. I have right of reply. But you are now objecting to that right as well
- you are engaging in deliberate dishonesty. This should be called out.
- you send a confused message. This should be detailed, and clarification sought.
- Yet you continue to avoid your own agreement with me while continuing to object

I don't think it's too much to ask a poster to sort their message and thoughts out, and engage in some honesty.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

So as you can see Max...logic with LL gets you nowhere.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Maybe you're right after all that we can't understand each other because we don't share the same profession
I never said such, and called you out of claiming I said such...so, you answered the question - you are engaging in deliberate intellectual dishonesty. I'm sure your God has noted that in his/her ledger.

Quote:
I'm sure you will reply once again to get the last word,

- you raised the objection. I have right of reply. But you are now objecting to that right as well
- you are engaging in deliberate dishonesty. This should be called out.
- you send a confused message. This should be detailed, and clarification sought.
- Yet you continue to avoid your own agreement with me while continuing to object

I don't think it's too much to ask a poster to sort their message and thoughts out, and engage in some honesty.

You said the following:

Quote:

I understood that. But offering your own experience, when talking about politicians, and you not being one, makes for a poor example. We're all human, but the environment we work in, and the inclinations that draw us to that environment result in a number of 'common' (not universal) character traits while conducting that work. Good comparison in human behaviour (if challenging a claimed trait in a group) require similar source examples, or things get skewed.

So you are not me. You don't work in the same environment or share other similarities. So by your own logic (which is false, btw), you have nothing valid to say about me.

By your own logic, you should not be posting anything to or about me any more than I should be posting regarding politicians of which I am not one nor do I work with them (by your definitions, anyway).

Your way of thinking builds its own border walls between people based on superficial notions of difference. But that ends up working out in my favor because I won't ultimately have to read your posts to or about me when you finally take your own logic seriously enough to withdraw from communication that isn't possible by your own standards and definitions.

So bye bye.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

You said the following:

Read in context of the conversation - it should be obvious I was talking about your example being a poor comparison. Perhaps I should know better - in the other threads you also had great difficulty remembering the flow of the conversation / the content as the conversation developed (ie. the context)

And after you wanted me to be talking about "understanding others", which I never did...I corrected you, directly telling you that conversation was about "what makes a good comparison".

Quote:

So you are not me. You don't work in the same environment or share other similarities. So by your own logic (which is false, btw), you have nothing valid to say about me.

A third time you are sticking to this 'you said ###', where I didn't, and I've previously corrected you twice . So now you are outright lying. Does it make it easier for you to paint yourself a victim here by lying to yourself, or is there some other motivation driving your need to continue this lie?For a christian, your morals with the truth are severely loose.

Why precisely you keep on with this nonsense is beyond me, seeing as you mostly agreed with me, providing numerous examples saying the same thing I said (if worded just a little differently). Are you objecting just to object?

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

(which is false, btw)

Btw, we agree - it doesn't work that way...something that is easy to agree on, seeing as I never said what you keep claiming I said.

It's quite amazing how much we agree on that you complain about.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
(which is false, btw)
Btw, we agree - it doesn't work that way...something that is easy to agree on, seeing as I never said what you keep claiming I said.

It's quite amazing how much we agree on that you complain about.

We could agree that you are a contrarian who tells me we agree in order to say something contrary to the fact I don't agree with you, but then you would disagree by claiming otherwise and telling me that we are actually in agreement about it.

ok, now your turn to have the last word again:

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

ok, now your turn to have the last word again:

Rather hypocritical of you to keep 'trying to get the last word in' while repeatedly throwing this line my way.

That aside, it seems either don't understand how you are agreeing, or you are just objecting to object. It appears more likely to be the latter.

0 Replies

Facts versus opinions and values. A primer for a post-fact society.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know