Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#2602 Feb 19 2016 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Irrelevant. The law in question was never intended to apply to harm from investigative journalism...

You think it's "irrelevant" that the law in question doesn't cover most of the US as you insist that journalists break this law all the time and no one cares? Haha, ok then...
Quote:
Quote:
I didn't see anything in that article addressing the creation and use of fraudulent government IDs (which is, you know, what the charge is about not just "lying"). I'll accept that I just missed it and wait for you to quote the relevant sections.
You weren't reading hard enough then.

kkthx


Edited, Feb 19th 2016 9:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2604 Feb 22 2016 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
And as I have already argued, [...] I've already made this argument [...] Repeating the same facts we've already discussed doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Heh. Repeating yourself doesn't add anything to the discussion but you insist on repeating your opinion and forcing everyone else to repeat facts.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2016 2:40pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2605 Feb 22 2016 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
So, when Trump wins the Top GOP spot, you will be voting trump, right Gbaji?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2606 Feb 22 2016 at 5:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, Gbaji already said that if Trump wins, he's going to support Clinton. I'm looking forward to it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2607 Feb 22 2016 at 5:16 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
No, Gbaji already said that if Trump wins, he's going to support Clinton. I'm looking forward to it.

Ha! I wouldn't believe it, but I would love to see him "admit" to doing it. I will guess there will be another "busy week" conveniently after the election.
#2608 Feb 22 2016 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And as I have already argued, [...] I've already made this argument [...] Repeating the same facts we've already discussed doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Heh. Repeating yourself doesn't add anything to the discussion but you insist on repeating your opinion and forcing everyone else to repeat facts.


There's a difference between repeating an argument and repeating a claim or fact, without bothering to make an argument yourself.

It's the difference between saying "X is true because of <argument in support of X being true>", and "X is true". I may repeat the first because maybe someone didn't understand the argument the first time. Perhaps I'll reword the argument slightly to help them understand, or approach it from a different angle. All of which does add to the discussion. But if all someone does is repeat the same thing over and over without adding anything, or changing their language in an attempt to help the other person understand, then they aren't adding anything.

But great job not grasping the basics of conversation.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2609 Feb 22 2016 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,960 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's the difference between saying "X is true because of <argument in support of X being true>", and "X is true". I may repeat the first because maybe someone didn't understand the argument the first time. Perhaps I'll reword the argument slightly to help them understand, or approach it from a different angle. All of which does add to the discussion. But if all someone does is repeat the same thing over and over without adding anything, or changing their language in an attempt to help the other person understand, then they aren't adding anything..
Not altogether true. You say "x" is true because <Ayn Rand blog link says so> followed by me saying "read this highly researched and regarded history book for the truth". The only thing that doesn't change is your absolute refusal to look at ANY source provided.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#2610 Feb 22 2016 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Try linking him to a book review next time. Or, better yet, a book report.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2611 Feb 23 2016 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's a difference between repeating an argument and repeating a claim or fact, without bothering to make an argument yourself.
Just changing the words but saying the exact same thing doesn't actually mean you added anything, nor made a new argument. It just means you know a bunch of words. It's debatable if you know what those words mean half the time, but by golly you know they exist.
gbaji wrote:
But great job not grasping the basics of conversation.
Whatever you need to repeat to yourself. You're adorable when you think you're being condescending.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2612 Feb 23 2016 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
****
4,141 posts
um, surely you can see from the way it ended out that that was a total burn
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2613 Feb 23 2016 at 4:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's the difference between saying "X is true because of <argument in support of X being true>", and "X is true". I may repeat the first because maybe someone didn't understand the argument the first time. Perhaps I'll reword the argument slightly to help them understand, or approach it from a different angle. All of which does add to the discussion. But if all someone does is repeat the same thing over and over without adding anything, or changing their language in an attempt to help the other person understand, then they aren't adding anything..
Not altogether true. You say "x" is true because <Ayn Rand blog link says so> followed by me saying "read this highly researched and regarded history book for the truth". The only thing that doesn't change is your absolute refusal to look at ANY source provided.


Um... I don't read Ayn Rand blogs. I don't actually visit any conservative sites. I post my opinions on various things based on my own understanding of those things, which itself is derived via observation and the application of logic and reason. I have never made an argument consisting solely of "X is true because <some source> says it's true". I always present a logical argument for my positions.

Can you say the same?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2614 Feb 23 2016 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't actually visit any conservative sites.

That's funny given how often you "just happened" to come across some article on a conservative website that you need to share with the class.
Quote:
Can you say the same?

Are you asking if people can lie?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2615 Feb 23 2016 at 4:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's a difference between repeating an argument and repeating a claim or fact, without bothering to make an argument yourself.
Just changing the words but saying the exact same thing doesn't actually mean you added anything, nor made a new argument. It just means you know a bunch of words. It's debatable if you know what those words mean half the time, but by golly you know they exist.


And again, you're missing that the key issue isn't about repetition, but about what you are repeating. Repeating an argument has merit. Repeating a conclusion does not. It's amazing to me how many people just don't get this. If you say "X is true", and I ask you why, repeating "X is true" again isn't a legitimate answer. Also, "Because <source> says so" isn't either, because my next question will be "why does <source> think X is true". If you can't answer that question, then you're just randomly picking source that say things you think are true, but have no actual reason for your choice.

Which seems like a pretty strange way to make decisions.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2616 Feb 23 2016 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,960 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's the difference between saying "X is true because of <argument in support of X being true>", and "X is true". I may repeat the first because maybe someone didn't understand the argument the first time. Perhaps I'll reword the argument slightly to help them understand, or approach it from a different angle. All of which does add to the discussion. But if all someone does is repeat the same thing over and over without adding anything, or changing their language in an attempt to help the other person understand, then they aren't adding anything..
Not altogether true. You say "x" is true because <Ayn Rand blog link says so> followed by me saying "read this highly researched and regarded history book for the truth". The only thing that doesn't change is your absolute refusal to look at ANY source provided.


Um... I don't read Ayn Rand blogs. I don't actually visit any conservative sites. I post my opinions on various things based on my own understanding of those things, which itself is derived via observation and the application of logic and reason. I have never made an argument consisting solely of "X is true because <some source> says it's true". I always present a logical argument for my positions.

Can you say the same?
I hope the brain injury you sustained heals soon.

Just because you can't remember doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#2617 Feb 23 2016 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
****
4,141 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's a difference between repeating an argument and repeating a claim or fact, without bothering to make an argument yourself.
Just changing the words but saying the exact same thing doesn't actually mean you added anything, nor made a new argument. It just means you know a bunch of words. It's debatable if you know what those words mean half the time, but by golly you know they exist.


And again, you're missing that the key issue isn't about repetition, but about what you are repeating. Repeating an argument has merit. Repeating a conclusion does not. It's amazing to me how many people just don't get this. If you say "X is true", and I ask you why, repeating "X is true" again isn't a legitimate answer. Also, "Because <source> says so" isn't either, because my next question will be "why does <source> think X is true". If you can't answer that question, then you're just randomly picking source that say things you think are true, but have no actual reason for your choice.

Which seems like a pretty strange way to make decisions.


Which is why we are all so baffled when you do it. Over and over again.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2618 Feb 24 2016 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Repeating an argument has merit. Repeating a conclusion does not.
As adorable as it is that you're trying to convince yourself you don't start at the conclusion and repeat your rationalizations for it, just changing the words but saying the exact same thing doesn't actually mean you added anything, nor made a new argument. It just means you know a bunch of words. It's debatable if you know what those words mean half the time, but by golly you know they exist.
gbaji wrote:
It's amazing to me how many people just don't get this.
You do seem to be quite amazed at how people just don't accept your opinions as gospel truths, regardless of how often you repeat them.
gbaji wrote:
Which seems like a pretty strange way to make decisions.
Quite strange no one just agrees with your erroneous opinions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2619 Feb 29 2016 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Repeating an argument has merit. Repeating a conclusion does not.
As adorable as it is that you're trying to convince yourself you don't start at the conclusion and repeat your rationalizations for it, just changing the words but saying the exact same thing doesn't actually mean you added anything, nor made a new argument.


Um... But the intent of using different words to make the same argument isn't to "add anything" or "make a new argument", but to attempt to find different language which will properly convey your argument to someone who appears to not have grasped it the first time. It's not about changing my argument, but trying different ways to get the same argument across. I'm not sure how that's at all a failing. It's how we teach people things.

Quote:
You do seem to be quite amazed at how people just don't accept your opinions as gospel truths, regardless of how often you repeat them.


Because I don't expect people to do that. Which is why I back up my opinions with actual argument. I get that for those in the "pick a side first" camp, this is a foreign concept. But that's your failing, not mine.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2620 Feb 29 2016 at 8:45 PM Rating: Good
****
4,141 posts
gbaji wrote:
...attempt to find different language which will properly convey your argument to someone who appears to not have grasped it the first time.


It's usually not that people have failed to grasp it the first time, it's that it is usually so asinine that we can easily dismiss it. Which is one of the reasons it is so annoying/amusing when you come in and reiterate the same asinine arguments.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2621 Mar 01 2016 at 8:38 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's how we teach people things.
The only thing that repeating something incorrectly does is teach something incorrectly.
gbaji wrote:
I get that for those in the "pick a side first" camp, this is a foreign concept.
This an example of one of your opinions with arguments? You didn't claim your "actual arguments" had anything to do with "reality," so I guess I can't really blame you for your continued attempts to be condescending. But sure, you don't pick sides first. Repeat that one a few more times. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2622 Mar 01 2016 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
...attempt to find different language which will properly convey your argument to someone who appears to not have grasped it the first time.


It's usually not that people have failed to grasp it the first time, it's that it is usually so asinine that we can easily dismiss it.


You and I have very different ideas of what dismissing an argument actually entails. Hint: It doesn't mean saying "you're wrong" over and over. When I present an argument, and someone says "you''re wrong", and I ask them why they think that, and all they can do is spin in circles repeating their assumption, without once actually addressing my argument, it's not wrong for me to conclude that they either did not understand the argument itself or they don't understand the concept of an argument at all (which for some on this forum, I suspect may be true).


Quote:
Which is one of the reasons it is so annoying/amusing when you come in and reiterate the same asinine arguments.


At least I present arguments. Most people here just repeat conclusions and think it's the same thing with the same weight. I'll repeat the argument until someone actually addresses and responds to it with an actual counter argument. Very very rarely does that happen around here though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2623 Mar 01 2016 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
You and I have very different ideas of what dismissing an argument actually entails. Hint: It doesn't mean saying "you're wrong" over and over.


that's exactly what dismissing something entails

the word you are looking for

is refuting

I hope this was educational for you
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#2624 Mar 01 2016 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I get that for those in the "pick a side first" camp, this is a foreign concept.
This an example of one of your opinions with arguments? You didn't claim your "actual arguments" had anything to do with "reality," so I guess I can't really blame you for your continued attempts to be condescending. But sure, you don't pick sides first. Repeat that one a few more times. Smiley: thumbsup


I don't pick sides first. I start with principles. Then I apply logical processes to those principles to derive a position on any given issue. I'm fully capable of providing a detailed step by step mental process by which I do this. Can you?

I'm serious here. Pick any issue you want and I'll do this for you. At no point will my reasoning include someone else telling me what my position should be, or me arguing that said position aligns with some group that I think is "good" or whatever. I'm reasonably certain that most people on this forum are incapable of doing the same (or will fall back on broad platitudes like "it's the right thing!", but when asked "why?" can't give an answer better than "because!", usually followed up with insults at anyone who doesn't agree with them).

So yeah. I'm going to repeat that. Because it's true. Again, I get that this is hard for people who have acquired all their positions based on picking a side that they like, and thus assume that everyone else does the same, but that's your own failing, not mine.

Edited, Mar 1st 2016 6:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2625 Mar 01 2016 at 8:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Quote:
You and I have very different ideas of what dismissing an argument actually entails. Hint: It doesn't mean saying "you're wrong" over and over.


that's exactly what dismissing something entails

the word you are looking for

is refuting

I hope this was educational for you


Oh. I'm sorry. I made the mistake of assuming that we were talking about dismissing something for legitimate reasons rather than just because we feel like it. Well, that clears things up.

So you acknowledge that what others are doing is dismissing and not refuting? Progress at last! That means we can safely ignore those dismissals as the rantings of irrational minds, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2626 Mar 02 2016 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I don't pick sides first.
Repeat that one a few more times. Smiley: thumbsup
gbaji wrote:
Can you?
You have unique and thought-provoking views of issues. Sure, I can lie.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 110 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (110)