Double Exposure, Inc.
  • July 16, 2018, 06:12:38 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Give me a break!!!!  (Read 4953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2009, 10:12:41 AM »

Actually, I call you names because I'm uncivil and kind of a jerk. Generally speaking, I'm not calling you names to downplay your arguments, but because I think less of you because you made such bad arguments.
In your opinion. Most of the time I make fairly well reasoned arguements that you simply disagree with. Many of them are backed up by the thoughts of highly respected scientists, journalists, etc. but because they disagree with something you saw or read they must be kooks or liers. I am sometimes pleased to hear someone who disagrees with me in a factual way. I would love to be wrong about some of the stuff I see happening. I would certainly sleep better. For challenging what you believe to be true, and in many cases admit not really knowing much about the subject, you refer to me as a loon or worse. However if I was offended by this I would have stopped posting long ago. Several times I have researched something you challenge me on and find that what I posted was not 100% accurate. Sometimes is even more than I thought, and a few times I have revised my position because the person I had gotten my info from had exagerated. Most times though my arguements are based on studies that you may not have seen simply because you do not watch or listen to tha same people I do.
The specific debate tactic you reference is used by like, every person who's ever debated anyone, anywhere, ever. Despite the logical fallacy inherent, the strong emotional appeal and the fact that emotion pretty much always trumps reason do to quirks of the human brain, makes it ridiculously effective. It's sucky, and should be held in poor regard, but it's not.
Emotional appeals are the last resort of the ignorant in most cases. It is the intellectual equivalent of throwing a grenade into a fist fight. Though effective, it usually does not end well for either. The discussion simply degenerates. That being said I sometimes do it too, but to a far lesser extent. I see it very often with Liberals in general simply because Liberals usually react and don't think. When you pick apart their emotional ramblings most of the time they simply resort to lobbing insults. Whenever an accusation of racism, sexism, or the talk ofwanting to harm children are thrown out there, it is tough to argue any further sinc noone wants to be regarded as a racist, homophobe, sexist or baby killer. The person who lobbed that is not winning the debate, they simply end the discussion and it usually degenerates to name calling. Generally that is useless waste of breath.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2009, 10:23:39 AM by Frigemall »
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2009, 07:50:42 AM »

In your opinion. Most of the time I make fairly well reasoned arguements that you simply disagree with.

It's also my opinion that water feels wet under most circumstances, and that the sun will come out tomorrow (tomorrow, tomorrow). You're welcome to hold alternate opinions, but you're not welcome to say they're equally valid.

Many of them are backed up by the thoughts of highly respected scientists, journalists, etc. but because they disagree with something you saw or read they must be kooks or liers.

Highly respected by whom? And for what? Just because you're highly respected in one field doesn't mean you deserve to be in another. Context matters, so does audience. If you're highly respected by creationist crazies for coming up with scientific sounding bullshit that confirms their pre-existing biases and lets them continue to get off on their bottoming-from-the-top thing, then great - despite the whole argument-to-authority thing, I will totally give them they time of day whenever the topic of discussion is how to do that. But not on other topics where it's clear they don't deserve much respect at all.

I am sometimes pleased to hear someone who disagrees with me in a factual way. I would love to be wrong about some of the stuff I see happening. I would certainly sleep better.

I take it this relates to your paranoia about the government, and not so much to the whole science thing?

For challenging what you believe to be true, and in many cases admit not really knowing much about the subject, you refer to me as a loon or worse.

So, the whole 'what you believe' thing is basically you doing the same thing back - kind of a pissy little dig to annoy me? Because that's how it comes across.

Several times I have researched something you challenge me on and find that what I posted was not 100% accurate.

If you substitute 'several' with 'many' and '<100%' with 'not at all', yes.

Sometimes is even more than I thought,

Just out of curiosity, which one was even more accurate than you thought?

and a few times I have revised my position because the person I had gotten my info from had exagerated.

Not enough times, unfortunately. But that's good - ability to progress is a positive trait.

Most times though my arguements are based on studies that you may not have seen simply because you do not watch or listen to tha same people I do.

This is largely, however, due to the fact that I don't spend a lot of time reading or listening or watching people with a vested personal interest in rolling the clock back on science and social justice anywhere from 50 to 500 years.

When you do link them, I do read them, and respond to them the best I'm able.

Emotional appeals are the last resort of the ignorant in most cases.

Dude, we are totally living in alternate universes, which completely explains everything! :)

It is the intellectual equivalent of throwing a grenade into a fist fight. Though effective, it usually does not end well for either. The discussion simply degenerates.

But it doesn't HAVE to degenerate, and I really object to this, because when all parties involved are passionate and skilled, they can have a very lively grenade boxing contest. Not as great as a grenade dance fight, though, but what is?

That being said I sometimes do it too, but to a far lesser extent.

Yes, yes, I know. When you do it's not nearly as bad as when those nasty 'others' do it.

I see it very often with Liberals in general simply because Liberals usually react and don't think. When you pick apart their emotional ramblings most of the time they simply resort to lobbing insults.

Fuck. :( I think you broke my ironometer.

Whenever an accusation of racism, sexism, or the talk ofwanting to harm children are thrown out there, it is tough to argue any further sinc noone wants to be regarded as a racist, homophobe, sexist or baby killer. The person who lobbed that is not winning the debate, they simply end the discussion and it usually degenerates to name calling. Generally that is useless waste of breath.

In light of your previous post about Kevin Jennings, where the fuck do you get off saying shit like this? I mean, I agree, but it's like 'wtf dude?'.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2009, 09:18:39 AM »

It's also my opinion that water feels wet under most circumstances, and that the sun will come out tomorrow (tomorrow, tomorrow). You're welcome to hold alternate opinions, but you're not welcome to say they're equally valid.
When you put out an opinion that is not well researched using old data that has been proven wrong, not only is my data equally valid, it is far better.
Highly respected by whom? And for what? Just because you're highly respected in one field doesn't mean you deserve to be in another. Context matters, so does audience. If you're highly respected by creationist crazies for coming up with scientific sounding bullshit that confirms their pre-existing biases and lets them continue to get off on their bottoming-from-the-top thing, then great - despite the whole argument-to-authority thing, I will totally give them they time of day whenever the topic of discussion is how to do that. But not on other topics where it's clear they don't deserve much respect at all.
I do not quote a physicist about archeology. If I quote them, usually they are Scientists at a research facility or a University and are experts in their field. Many times they are one of the leaders in their feild. Many times I post a link, but none of that is good enough for you, because you have this pre-conceived notion that you are right and anyone who disagrees is a kook or an idiot. So be it, but maybe someone else who reads it may get something out of it.
I take it this relates to your paranoia about the government, and not so much to the whole science thing?
It is not paranoia, it is a piecing together of facts. You are just too trusting of your Government to be able to see past your party.
So, the whole 'what you believe' thing is basically you doing the same thing back - kind of a pissy little dig to annoy me? Because that's how it comes across.
It is not a dig, I would not waste my time. You say you believe in nothing, however you do come in with pre-conceptions that color how you look at things. If you believed in nothing, you could not argue one side of an arguement. You have beliefs, just not in a God.
Just out of curiosity, which one was even more accurate than you thought?
I will give you two examples. I originally spoke of the fossil record being inaccurate. I have found however that some of the things they originally touted as being fossil record was fabricated and though it was discovered and plainly disproven, the information is still put into text books and presented to children as factual. The other is I originally thought there was corruption in ACORN, but as I find out more, I find that it is beyond just a little corruption. It is a major amount.
Not enough times, unfortunately. But that's good - ability to progress is a positive trait.
One you don't seem to possess.
This is largely, however, due to the fact that I don't spend a lot of time reading or listening or watching people with a vested personal interest in rolling the clock back on science and social justice anywhere from 50 to 500 years.
You mean by insisting that our Government be run according to the Constitution and not what some Progressive thinks is 'fair'. Or maybe what some Atheist think is right when they want to make laws that restrict my ability to practice my religion? Maybe you should listen to them.
When you do link them, I do read them, and respond to them the best I'm able.
Yes, by saying they are kooks or idiots. but I am glad to know you read them. Maybe one of them will have some effect.
But it doesn't HAVE to degenerate, and I really object to this, because when all parties involved are passionate and skilled, they can have a very lively grenade boxing contest. Not as great as a grenade dance fight, though, but what is?
I am just not sure how productive calling someone a kook is. Especially when the only response is something like 'You are a blind fool'. Better just to respond by showing that the things I have put out are simply not true and prove it to be so. If I say there is no fossil record to support Evolution, you could shut me up by simply showing me the fossil record. I would then have to pull up proof that your fossil record is fake or not what it appears, or I could not logically make that claim anymore. Calling me a kook does not help this. It simply muddles the matter.
In light of your previous post about Kevin Jennings, where the fuck do you get off saying shit like this? I mean, I agree, but it's like 'wtf dude?'.
In that case I simply posted what his statements were and asked if that was what we wanted as a person in charge of safe schools. That was genuinely showing a concern about a poorly Vetted hire, again. This administration has a bad record of putting very iffy people into positions with alot of influence. When these things are pointed out publically, several of them have been fired. It does not sound like the charges are inaccurate or overplayed. See Van Jones. That is what the media is supposed to do. I never claimed he is a child molester. I simply asked if it was appropriate for the Safe Schools Czar to revere a group and an individual who want to make it easier to mollest children. Big difference. I also did not call you a child mollester because you somehoiw can support this appointment. I keep hoping that when you see something like this you will be shocked and perhaps outraged a bit having not been informed of this before. I do find it hard to understand when you cn defend stuff like that. I just chalk it up to hyper partisanship.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up