ABORTION.......

She apparently had plenty of argument for you to disparage. It just seems a simple concept to me that any argument that can be reasonably insulted can be disputed.

To dispute something with no supportable basis by which it is disputed smacks of unreasoned argument to me.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Chum wrote-

Quote:
Some people believe in Leprechauns, Trolls, Taro Cards, Gods, Zen, Prayer, Animal Spirits, Zombies, Devils, Heaven, Astrology, Reincarnation, Hell, Purgatory, UFO's, etc.

Do these beliefs make people nicer and more productive? I'll leave that up to you to assess. I will say it makes them less realistic.

In my experience the ones who believe in Leprechauns and Tarot shag like bunnies.You'll have to do your own research on the others.I'd probably start with the astrologists if I ran out of the others but I can't gaurantee it.

My first wife was into astrology, and she fucked like a mink and blew like the wind, so you may something there. This will require further investigations!

0 Replies

Quote:

To dispute something with no supportable basis by which it is disputed smacks of unreasoned argument to me.

Agreed. Please illustrate where I did this (as you seem to be implying)
I am still puzzled as to what 'real life' (are you sure real life is a chick?) said that you would categorize as a refutable argument.
As having reread this thread yet again, I see nothing of the sort that hasnt been adressed already,so I will ask you again to produce something for me to work with.
I find your refusal to do so highly suspect, and I am left wondering just what it is you are trying to argue for.

0 Replies

Doktor S v. Foxfyre:
The expectation of intelligent discourse meets the thought processes best described as "neener-neener-neener".

Perhaps best personified in her own words

Foxfyre wrote:

I concede nothing.

given that she has nothing to concede, I find this her first and only rational sentence.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Doktor S v. Foxfyre

The expectation of intelligent discourse meets the thought processes best described as "neener-neener-neener".

Perhaps best personified in her own words
Foxfyre wrote:
I concede nothing.
given that she has nothing to concede, I find this her first and only rational sentence.

Yes. logical discourse vs 'neener neener' does present somewhat of a communicative conundrum.

She talks much, but has really said nothing at all. She apparently stands in vicarious support of 'real lifes arguments', but has been completely unable to demonstrate or illustrate just what those arguments are.
It's actually rather bizzar.

0 Replies

For such an intelligent logician, you should use the spellchecker. Otherwise, you may lose whatever merit you may be attempting to portray.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

To dispute something with no supportable basis by which it is disputed smacks of unreasoned argument to me.

Agreed. Please illustrate where I did this (as you seem to be implying)
I am still puzzled as to what 'real life' (are you sure real life is a chick?) said that you would categorize as a refutable argument.
As having reread this thread yet again, I see nothing of the sort that hasnt been adressed already,so I will ask you again to produce something for me to work with.
I find your refusal to do so highly suspect, and I am left wondering just what it is you are trying to argue for.

Doktor said

Quote:

You havne't provided a coherent 'challenge' as all of 'real lifes' claims have been adressed, or are simply nonsensicle.

What is your basis for this statement?

I present ALL of Real Life's claims as the challenge or any one of them in context. There are lots and lots of them. Surely you can produce just one of her quotes that you consider to have been addressed with reason, logic, or scientific fact or you can produce one that is simply nonsensible (I assume that was the word you were going for.)'

So just pick one. Your choice. Just be sure it is in context with any pertinent links, follow up, and/or qualifiers included and provide (links) so we can check to be sure it is in context.

How hard can that be?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Doktor S v. Foxfyre:
The expectation of intelligent discourse meets the thought processes best described as "neener-neener-neener".

Perhaps best personified in her own words
Foxfyre wrote:
I concede nothing.
given that she has nothing to concede, I find this her first and only rational sentence.

I find that your ignoring my challenge to you earlier today to be most enlightening Chumly. I didn't really expect you to be able to accept it, of course. I certainly did not concede your own unsupportable claim that I had resigned my position for I certainly have not. So who is employing 'neener neener neener' here? Not me.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

For such an intelligent logician, you should use the spellchecker. Otherwise, you may lose whatever merit you may be attempting to portray.

Don't bash my buddy or I'll copy & paste your perfectly spell checked text and mess it all up in a following post "neener-neener-neener".

You may chuckle quietly to yourself as time permits and have a beverage as well

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I present ALL of Real Life's claims as the challenge or any one of them in context.

What, stop there? Why not present every singe argument since time immemorial irrelative of whether it may or may not support your contentions?

0 Replies

LoL.
Now you are just repeating yourself.

Quote:

I present ALL of Real Life's claims as the challenge or any one of them in context. There are lots and lots of them.

Such as?

Quote:

you can produce one that is simply nonsensible (I assume that was the word you were going for.)'

Nope
non·sen·si·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nn-sns-kl)
adj.

1. Lacking intelligible meaning: a nonsensical jumble of words.
2. Foolish; absurd: nonsensical ideas.

Seriously...get on with it. I'm getting sick of debating against your 'non-position' Either produce or stop adressing me.

0 Replies

Okay, nonsensical works, but it is even worse as it is clearly an insult rather than an observation.

I accept your withdrawal Doktor as you have been able to offer nothing but insults for your opinion. While I don't doubt you probably have a high IQ, I would not say you have offered any kind of intelligent argument re another members posts even as you clearly disparage them and even as you sidestep and attempt to deflect a quite reasonable requst to support your opinion.

In the world of formal debate, you get huge deductions for making unsupportable claims should your opponent call you on them. I have called you on yours. I accept that you cannot support them.

Nevertheless, I wish you well and a good evening.

0 Replies

Quote:

In the world of formal debate, you get huge deductions for making unsupportable claims should your opponent call you on them. I have called you on yours. I accept that you cannot support them.

Again, illustrate where and how I have done this. That I have claimed real lifes arguments to be nonsensical means they are not arguments at all, but random statements, assertions, and conclusion bereft of premises. Asking me to prove this is indeed asking me to prove a negative.
I simply can not address something that does not exist.

Again, I bring to light 'prove talking pigs don't exist' as a comparison for what you are 'challenging' me to do.
In your words, 'I concede nothing', as you have presented no arguments as of yet!

0 Replies

If you want to continue, the only thing I am willing to adress at this point would be a presented claim from 'real life' that you would like refuted.
I am getting dizzy from your little merry go round ride, so anything else will be ignored. kthxbye

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
For such an intelligent logician, you should use the spellchecker. Otherwise, you may lose whatever merit you may be attempting to portray.
Don't bash my buddy or I'll copy & paste your perfectly spell checked text and mess it all up in a following post "neener-neener-neener".

You may chuckle quietly to yourself as time permits and have a beverage as well

LOL. You set yourself higher than you deserve. Aparently, you do not even know what is written by you and what is written by doc.

I was replying to him. I have not seen evidence of your superior IQ or logic. Then again, I have not seen it from doc either. I was in no way bashing you, Chum.

0 Replies

Why do you suppose I used the word "buddy"?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Why do you suppose I used the word "buddy"?

I owe you an apology. I obviousely have my screen text set too small. I saw me instead of my. The rest of my post remains. :-)

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
For such an intelligent logician, you should use the spellchecker. Otherwise, you may lose whatever merit you may be attempting to portray.
Don't bash my buddy or I'll copy & paste your perfectly spell checked text and mess it all up in a following post "neener-neener-neener".

You may chuckle quietly to yourself as time permits and have a beverage as well

LOL. You set yourself higher than you deserve. Aparently, you do not even know what is written by you and what is written by doc.

I was replying to him. I have not seen evidence of your superior IQ or logic. Then again, I have not seen it from doc either. I was in no way bashing you, Chum.

As you did not seem to 'observe' that he clearly pointed out his recognition of who posted what (see chumlys last post) leaves your observational skills in question.
Thus that you do not 'see' evidence of something means very little to me. Smile

0 Replies

My observational skills are fine. It is my eyesight that is lacking.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Why do you suppose I used the word "buddy"?

I owe you an apology. I obviousely have my screen text set too small. I saw me instead of my. The rest of my post remains. :-)

Which part of your post would it be that remains?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know