On October 12 2008 15:55 D10 wrote: Theres no point in doing so, if i posted a picture of Palin eating dog poo you would probably try to argue your way around it.
Face it, you are biased to the heart in every bit of this discussion, Biden is a intelligent accomplished man, hes known to make gaffs, and even so hes doing way better than her gaff wise, she has no substance, Biden could puke in courics face and that would have more content than Palin interviews.
Previous interviews she did way better ? Well what the hell did she talked about ? religion and hunting ? show us those interviews
Dont need to show anything about Biden, everyone knows him, his stands, his gaffs
You're talking about subjective valuation.
Look on youtube if you want to find the interviews Palin has been involved in.
Well, if you know Biden's gaffes they paint a clear picture of a person who is either lying and retarded or just retarded. Take your pick.
No, there has been clear bias against Palin from the beginning. From even before people heard her speak they were making up shit about her and people like you were eating it up.
It continued after the Gibson interview where her response about the Bush Doctrine was incorrectly considered a stupid response since there is more than one thing called the Bush doctrine.
The fact that there is more than one thing called the Bush doctrine did not phase liberal blogs, and probably didn't phase you as well.
Ya, I do believe Biden could puke in courics face and you would defend it.
On October 12 2008 13:10 ahrara_ wrote: I really like when people try to talk about theory of argument with me. People should learn not to do that with competitive debaters.
Argument is not making one or two sentence responses to everything I say with something along the lines of "but that's not neccessarily true." When you are confronted with evidence to the contrary, you have to explain how that's not true to be persuasive. Nothing except mathematical truth is absolutely guaranteed to be true. A baby could point out out potential flaws in an argument. It takes somebody who knows what they're talking about to couple that potential flaw (the claim) with reasoning and evidence (warrants). Responding to these kinds of posts is frustrating and pointless. It has nothing to do with "argumentation style" like travis wants to say. It is fucking ignorance to think that claims alone are argument. This is an universal, and apolitical truth. Accept it, get to know it, and use it.
To be fair though, it would be hugely hypocritical for me to attack you for doing this while not mentioning that a lot of the liberal posters in this thread are equally if not more guilty of the same thing.
I love it when "competitive debaters" talk about the theory of arguments. Debaters should learn not do that with logic/philosophy students.
Any "claim" can be an argument as long as it has a premise that supports the conclusion. What makes an argument different from an explanation, or a string of topically related sentences i.e. "Britney Spears is awesome because she shaved her head." is that the truth or falsity of the conclusion is unknown, and the premises are offered to PROVE the conclusion is true. Basically a passage is considered an argument if it implicitly claims "Q because of P". It's not an argument when we all know Q to be true and P just offers an explanation as to why it's true i.e. "Apples fall to the earth because of gravity."
Just Sayin'.
Now, good arguments are a whole nother story.
Ya. Good argument is what I was going for. Claims are certainly arguments. I should qualified what I said with "if you want to be persuasive/worth anybody's time." In summary, I was saying that if you're going to assert your opinion, out of respect you had better back that opinion up with something.
I had a list of 12 things that Biden has said in response to 5 things that aRod thought were stupid about Palin.
How do quotations prove anything? I'm sure I could find a hundred things dumb things anybody on this forum has posted.
Your only response to the only post with any substance regarding this topic (MINE, to be without humility whatsoever) was:
Being on a committee requires no ability. Anyone can meet a world leader. Evidently she caught up in that department in like one day of minimal effort. So what if he has produced policy proposals? It is highly unlikely that they were not influenced by people who actually know something.(staff, advisors, freinds, organizations, etc) Well, ok, yes instead of being reduced to jargon, evidently this foreign policy genius just makes shit up on the spot.
First of all, you don't respond to:
On the other hand, I can tell you that Palin was a communications major in college, that until she ran for governor she had never studied economics or international relations, that she has absolutely no clue what the bailout does or whether it's any good, that she has genuinely claimed before she was selected as VP that she didnt' know what the VP does, and that she has no experience of leadership at the national level, much less at the international level.
But second, your response to the first half of my post about biden is just denial. It's insulting because you don't even consider the whole of my argument, which is that all these things combined suggest he has more experience and better understanding of world events. Basically you're saying "that doesn't NECESSARILY imply that he's intelligent," which is strictly a defensive argument. The only point where you have any traction is where you talk about that what he says is nonsense. There are two problems with this judgment: a.) I think it's clear you're not very well informed about international relations, and not as qualified to judge the quality of said statements b.) You can find ridiculously stupid things any politician has said. c.) Misspeaking or misrepresenting an idea is a hell of a lot better than having NO idea at all. I know for a fact Biden has well thought out responses to all the questions i asked you earlier. I know for a fact that when Palin has been asked similar questions, her answers were strictly fluff and generalizations.
If you're going to respond I hope you back up your opinions with a little more than just "that's not true!!!!"
On October 12 2008 16:07 BlackJack wrote: evandi, am I correct in assuming you think Bush is even more retarded than Biden, given all the stupid stuff he has said?
Well, I think he at least has given the appearance of being stupider than Biden.
On October 12 2008 15:55 D10 wrote: Theres no point in doing so, if i posted a picture of Palin eating dog poo you would probably try to argue your way around it.
Face it, you are biased to the heart in every bit of this discussion, Biden is a intelligent accomplished man, hes known to make gaffs, and even so hes doing way better than her gaff wise, she has no substance, Biden could puke in courics face and that would have more content than Palin interviews.
Previous interviews she did way better ? Well what the hell did she talked about ? religion and hunting ? show us those interviews
Dont need to show anything about Biden, everyone knows him, his stands, his gaffs
You're talking about subjective valuation.
Look on youtube if you want to find the interviews Palin has been involved in.
Well, if you know Biden's gaffes they paint a clear picture of a person who is either lying and retarded or just retarded. Take your pick.
No, there has been clear bias against Palin from the beginning. From even before people heard her speak they were making up shit about her and people like you were eating it up.
It continued after the Gibson interview where her response about the Bush Doctrine was incorrectly considered a stupid response since there is more than one thing called the Bush doctrine.
The fact that there is more than one thing called the Bush doctrine did not phase liberal blogs, and probably didn't phase you as well.
Ya, I do believe Biden could puke in courics face and you would defend it.
I think what you say about the Bush Doctrine is fair. But:
No I mean, EXPLAIN that. Seriously, please explain to me how that does not prove she is ridiculously uninformed about the economy. If you tell me that this question was at all reasonable and educated then I really have nothing else to say to you except that you are WOEFULLY uninformed and ignorant, and there is nobody on either side with any idea about what's going on with the economy who will tell you different.
You keep saying the interview is edited. But the entire interview was aired over the span of a few days. It wasn't edited to pick out the juiciest parts. Show me the most intelligent answer she gave Kouric. Please.
On October 12 2008 13:10 ahrara_ wrote: I really like when people try to talk about theory of argument with me. People should learn not to do that with competitive debaters.
Argument is not making one or two sentence responses to everything I say with something along the lines of "but that's not neccessarily true." When you are confronted with evidence to the contrary, you have to explain how that's not true to be persuasive. Nothing except mathematical truth is absolutely guaranteed to be true. A baby could point out out potential flaws in an argument. It takes somebody who knows what they're talking about to couple that potential flaw (the claim) with reasoning and evidence (warrants). Responding to these kinds of posts is frustrating and pointless. It has nothing to do with "argumentation style" like travis wants to say. It is fucking ignorance to think that claims alone are argument. This is an universal, and apolitical truth. Accept it, get to know it, and use it.
To be fair though, it would be hugely hypocritical for me to attack you for doing this while not mentioning that a lot of the liberal posters in this thread are equally if not more guilty of the same thing.
I love it when "competitive debaters" talk about the theory of arguments. Debaters should learn not do that with logic/philosophy students.
Any "claim" can be an argument as long as it has a premise that supports the conclusion. What makes an argument different from an explanation, or a string of topically related sentences i.e. "Britney Spears is awesome because she shaved her head." is that the truth or falsity of the conclusion is unknown, and the premises are offered to PROVE the conclusion is true. Basically a passage is considered an argument if it implicitly claims "Q because of P". It's not an argument when we all know Q to be true and P just offers an explanation as to why it's true i.e. "Apples fall to the earth because of gravity."
Just Sayin'.
Now, good arguments are a whole nother story.
Ya. Good argument is what I was going for. Claims are certainly arguments. I should qualified what I said with "if you want to be persuasive/worth anybody's time." In summary, I was saying that if you're going to assert your opinion, out of respect you had better back that opinion up with something.
Being on a committee requires no ability. Anyone can meet a world leader. Evidently she caught up in that department in like one day of minimal effort. So what if he has produced policy proposals? It is highly unlikely that they were not influenced by people who actually know something.(staff, advisors, freinds, organizations, etc) Well, ok, yes instead of being reduced to jargon, evidently this foreign policy genius just makes shit up on the spot.
On the other hand, I can tell you that Palin was a communications major in college, that until she ran for governor she had never studied economics or international relations, that she has absolutely no clue what the bailout does or whether it's any good, that she has genuinely claimed before she was selected as VP that she didnt' know what the VP does, and that she has no experience of leadership at the national level, much less at the international level.
But second, your response to the first half of my post about biden is just denial. It's insulting because you don't even consider the whole of my argument, which is that all these things combined suggest he has more experience and better understanding of world events. Basically you're saying "that doesn't NECESSARILY imply that he's intelligent," which is strictly a defensive argument. The only point where you have any traction is where you talk about that what he says is nonsense. There are two problems with this judgment: a.) I think it's clear you're not very well informed about international relations, and not as qualified to judge the quality of said statements b.) You can find ridiculously stupid things any politician has said. c.) Misspeaking or misrepresenting an idea is a hell of a lot better than having NO idea at all. I know for a fact Biden has well thought out responses to all the questions i asked you earlier. I know for a fact that when Palin has been asked similar questions, her answers were strictly fluff and generalizations.
If you're going to respond I hope you back up your opinions with a little more than just "that's not true!!!!"
"How do quotations prove anything? I'm sure I could find a hundred things dumb things anybody on this forum has posted. "
They don't literally prove anything, but stupid quotes are widely regarded as evidence for stupidity. Ya, well if people accept the principle that you can use a stupid quote against Palin they must also accept the principle that you can use a stupid quote against Biden. If you don't think its valid against Palin, than obviously you shouldn't be arguing with me.
"On the other hand, I can tell you that Palin was a communications major in college, that until she ran for governor she had never studied economics or international relations, that she has absolutely no clue what the bailout does or whether it's any good, that she has genuinely claimed before she was selected as VP that she didnt' know what the VP does, and that she has no experience of leadership at the national level, much less at the international level"
Well, it is an old joke that the vice presidency is worthless: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700262339,00.html "You're not going to take it, are you?" — Grace Coolidge to her husband, Calvin, after he was nominated for vice president in 1920.
"I suppose I'll have to." — Calvin Coolidge's reply. He became president upon Warren Harding's death in 1923.
"I do not propose to be buried until I am dead." — Daniel Webster, turning down the vice presidency in 1839.
Being vice president is comparable to "a man in a cataleptic fit; he cannot speak; he cannot move; he suffers no pain; he is perfectly conscious of all that goes on, but has no part in it." — Thomas R. Marshall, vice president under Woodrow Wilson.
"I am vice president. In this I am nothing, but I may be everything." — John Adams, elected vice president 1788 and 1792.
"The second office of this government is honorable and easy, the first is but a splendid misery." — Thomas Jefferson in 1797, when he was vice president.
"I would a great deal rather be anything, say professor of history, than vice president." — Theodore Roosevelt, before becoming William McKinley's vice president and succeeding to the presidency upon McKinley's assassination in 1901.
I guess you must be retarded for not knowing that right?
How do you know what classes Palin took in college? You don't
"But second, your response to the first half of my post about biden is just denial. It's insulting because you don't even consider the whole of my argument, which is that all these things combined suggest he has more experience and better understanding of world events. Basically you're saying "that doesn't NECESSARILY imply that he's intelligent," which is strictly a defensive argument."
No, really, its not like he was given a position as a political science teacher. Really, none of our politicians who are in our committees necessarily know jack shit about the subject of the committee. You put this forward as if it were some sort of qualification, which it is not.
"The only point where you have any traction is where you talk about that what he says is nonsense. There are two problems with this judgment:"
"a.) I think it's clear you're not very well informed about international relations, and not as qualified to judge the quality of said statements"
Well, perhaps if you know why the statements are true you can show me. Until then you are accomplishing nothing.
"b.) You can find ridiculously stupid things any politician has said."
Yes, I know that. I am saying that he says more stupid things than Palin. If you don't care for the argument that stupid things imply one is stupid and the more stupid things one does/says the more stupid one is, than don't respond to me about this. That is a logic that Palin haters accept.
"c.) Misspeaking or misrepresenting an idea is a hell of a lot better than having NO idea at all."
No, flat out lying is not better than saying nothing at all. It is far worse. There is a saying that is being violated that it is better to say nothing and risk being thought of as stupid then to say something stupid and remove all doubt.
"I know for a fact Biden has well thought out responses to all the questions i asked you earlier. I know for a fact that when Palin has been asked similar questions, her answers were strictly fluff and generalizations."
Well, he is so specific and so specifically wrong that he removes all doubt.
"If you're going to respond I hope you back up your opinions with a little more than just "that's not true!!!!""
Well, you started this chain of discussion by telling me I was just wrong.
On October 12 2008 15:55 D10 wrote: Theres no point in doing so, if i posted a picture of Palin eating dog poo you would probably try to argue your way around it.
Face it, you are biased to the heart in every bit of this discussion, Biden is a intelligent accomplished man, hes known to make gaffs, and even so hes doing way better than her gaff wise, she has no substance, Biden could puke in courics face and that would have more content than Palin interviews.
Previous interviews she did way better ? Well what the hell did she talked about ? religion and hunting ? show us those interviews
Dont need to show anything about Biden, everyone knows him, his stands, his gaffs
You're talking about subjective valuation.
Look on youtube if you want to find the interviews Palin has been involved in.
Well, if you know Biden's gaffes they paint a clear picture of a person who is either lying and retarded or just retarded. Take your pick.
No, there has been clear bias against Palin from the beginning. From even before people heard her speak they were making up shit about her and people like you were eating it up.
It continued after the Gibson interview where her response about the Bush Doctrine was incorrectly considered a stupid response since there is more than one thing called the Bush doctrine.
The fact that there is more than one thing called the Bush doctrine did not phase liberal blogs, and probably didn't phase you as well.
Ya, I do believe Biden could puke in courics face and you would defend it.
I think what you say about the Bush Doctrine is fair. But: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txfqWzGMgmY&feature=related No I mean, EXPLAIN that. Seriously, please explain to me how that does not prove she is ridiculously uninformed about the economy. If you tell me that this question was at all reasonable and educated then I really have nothing else to say to you except that you are WOEFULLY uninformed and ignorant, and there is nobody on either side with any idea about what's going on with the economy who will tell you different.
You keep saying the interview is edited. But the entire interview was aired over the span of a few days. It wasn't edited to pick out the juiciest parts. Show me the most intelligent answer she gave Kouric. Please.
Look, what I mean by edited, is that they made sure to include all of the bad stuff whilst I don't think that that is usually the case.
But, unless it is something specifically wrong with that youtube, there was an edit at 1:00.
That might just be the youtube, I don't know.
It doesn't really matter to point if she has made one or two mistakes because my point was that Biden was dumber.
EDIT: What I really mean by "edited" is that while they didn't include everything they did make sure to include the bad stuff.
She didn't make any mistakes. Making a mistake is like telling a guy in a wheelchair to stand up. Ranting on and having no idea what you are talking about is just plain idiocy. That's the difference you're obviously missing.
On October 12 2008 12:10 XoXiDe wrote: this made me laugh
anyway, there's plenty of people who believe in "a" god who aren't creationist. This shouldn't turn into a god exists or doesn't exists discussion, but as for my own beliefs, I definitely don't believe in any written fairy tales like the bible, but I don't presume to have any certainty that there is a god or isn't. If I have any kind of "faith" it's in science.
Well, after all that, there is no proof. Its a theory with lots of evidence. The odds are that neither of us are informed enough to know a lot about most of the proof.
Just a point about this, and I will try to make it distinct.
We have these two theories. Even given what the scientific evidence sugests, it will probably never be possible to outright prove one or the other. With me so far?
Here comes the interesting part about he theory of evolution. It is possible to disprove it. If scientific evidence was found that debunked the theory of evolution, it would have to be abandoned or revised to fit the fact. The ability to produce hypothesises that can be either proved or disproved using empirical evidence is the most fundamental element of that which we call science, and since creationism cannot do so, it is not science, ergo, creationism should not be taught in science class.
evandi, don't be offended, but i think you should just make a "Why Biden is dumber than Palin" thread and let people get back to discussing the other aspects of this race.
btw i have to say that even your own logic, grammer and vocabulary is so much above the level of Palin... you might find a paradox in that
"..we have got to look at trade as oppurtunity not as a competitive scary thing but one of five jobs created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more oppurtunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation.. this bailout is a part of that. "?? and that's one of the most logical sentences I heard her say.
"don't argue with idiots they will drag you to their level and beat you with experience..."
Palin is a supermodel. She is not quialified to be anywhere near the presidency, are you kidding me?
She endorses the terrorist group Hammas due to her ignorance. Absolutely ridiculous:
In addition to not answering the question sufficiently, she can't name a single Supreme Court Case. WTF? Is this some kind of sick joke??
She can't name a single newspaper agency that she reads. The irony that she makes the statement in the clip "Alaska isn't some foreign country where you wonder how can you keep in touch with the rest of us?"
On October 12 2008 19:06 gymni wrote: She's so clueless it's unbelievable.
I mean... To be creationist, you have to be completely dumb anyway. I don't want to be offensive, but someone who believe in something that absurd, and despite all the scientifical evidences is not qualified for any big responsability.
By the way, the argument that darwinism is just a theory is just dumb. Every scientific system is called a theory, which implied it can change and being modified or enlarged (does not mean it's wrong: Newton theory has been replaced by one thousand other system, but is still valid; it is not wrong but uncomplete). And secondly in this matter, creationism is scientifically wrong anyway.
Creationism is not rational. I don't trust someone irrational to rule a country.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Gugen/cartoonscale_use.jpg)
