|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 05 2008 05:18 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2008 04:35 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
How the hell can someone argue that a source doesn't have to be credible? You fucking kidding me? I could declare right now that I know for a fact that rat milk is 500% more healthy for you than daily exercise with my source being a leprekaun. Of fucking course the credibility of a source matters holy shit. Show nested quote +On September 05 2008 04:41 Hawk wrote:
Writers who constantly deemed credible can't have their works taken at face value, and it's certainly not worth investigating into whether or not they're right. I've agreed with inc, what has become of meeeee
edit: do a quick google of John Rense and you'll see he isn't worth the time.. Do you guys know what the word credible means? And what the phrase has to be means? Part of the reason people are so closeminded is because they are also so closeminded about the sources they get information from.
Oh rofl.. sorry we assumed you weren't be a literal nit-picking asshat who goes beyond implication and strictly only means what is actually said. You are right. There is no law against less than reputable sources and their credibility. You literally are correct. It doesn't have to be credible for it to be a source. Jesus, thank god we cleared that up.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 05 2008 05:27 Thrill wrote:
Just for the sake of trolling then, what people beside nordic do you propose are greater?
When actually thinking about it, i can come up with far less negative things about nordic people than any other, i mean - purely speaking from prejudice. So from an outside perspective i'd say yes - greatest per capita indeed. Inside? Wouldn't know until i've spent more time actually living and less time as a tourist abroad.
I just spent a year studying the middle east. I can without a doubt say I hate that region more than I do the nordic one. I'm ethnocentric btw.
In saudi arabia there is no women's suffrage. It is also illegal for them to drive. When a dutch newspaper depicts Muhammed in a disrespectful way they (islamic countries, moving away from strictly saudi arabia now) have riots that kill 100's of people and promise more to come. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, tolerable rape etc..
|
So we should not do our best to be literal in our discussions?
And I do not believe the point I made to be insignificant.
Credibility is largely(perhaps mostly) defined by the status quo - and this is part of the reason paradigm shifts happen so, so slowly - they don't happen until they are completely forced - even when the truth is blatantly obvious to freethinking people.
Being cynical and sarcastic does nothing to make one of us more right or more wrong, and it does nothing to help further understanding on either side.
Although I will admit it can often be amusing.
|
On September 05 2008 05:36 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2008 05:27 Thrill wrote:
Just for the sake of trolling then, what people beside nordic do you propose are greater?
When actually thinking about it, i can come up with far less negative things about nordic people than any other, i mean - purely speaking from prejudice. So from an outside perspective i'd say yes - greatest per capita indeed. Inside? Wouldn't know until i've spent more time actually living and less time as a tourist abroad. I just spent a year studying the middle east. I can without a doubt say I hate that region more than I do the nordic one. I'm ethnocentric btw. In saudi arabia there is no women's suffrage. It is also illegal for them to drive. When a dutch newspaper depicts Muhammed in a disrespectful way they (islamic countries, moving away from strictly saudi arabia now) have riots that kill 100's of people and promise more to come. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, tolerable rape etc..
Yep, definitley - i discriminate and "rank" greatness as well. Disclaimer: no, i don't believe this is gene determined, only an idiot would. That's why it's a little interesting for me to hear what others rank as 'greatest'? Perhaps it's simply so that we all rank ourselves as greatest which does make things a bit boring in this case. Hmm, so, ok:
I'm nordic, if i am to pick "the greatest people" outside of the nordic countries, i would have to choose the Brittish main island. This is not an easy choice however and one i've pondered a LOT as i've concidered med school abroad possibly followed by a working life there. Currently i havn't been able to find a choice better than staying put.
But i'm always interested to get input and opinions that may lead to me looking more closely into new options which turn out to be true eye-openers.
But really - inside my own international circle, we've all pretty much arrived at the conclusion that if your native country is suddenly blown up, a nordic country seems pretty damn appealing as a homeland, especially due to the people.
Faced with the same question - if the US suddenly dissapeared, where would you go? It's quite an interesting scenario which forces a lot of thinking, at least for me.
|
If I was to move I would consider:
Switzerland, France, New Zealand.
|
On September 05 2008 04:35 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
How the hell can someone argue that a source doesn't have to be credible? You fucking kidding me? I could declare right now that I know for a fact that rat milk is 500% more healthy for you than daily exercise with my source being a leprekaun. Of fucking course the credibility of a source matters holy shit.
No I'm not kidding you. Denying what somone says because of how/what he is a known fallacy called Ad Hominem. You should learn basic syllogistic logic before trying to argue anything.
On September 05 2008 04:31 travis wrote:
Only if you aren't willing to investigate the truth of the words for yourself.
He said it himself.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Thrill: I would move to Canada. Great country, very close in climate etc.
Travis: Of course there is room for literal interpretations. But it is often said that those that can determine when interpretation calls for a literal or figurative translation are probably more intelligent. You tried to nit-pick the fucking point as if it needed to be determined that there is no law mandating the physical impossibility of a less-than "credible" source existing.
kemoryan: The broken english in your post difuses any chance of a coherent thought being pulled from that. "How/what he is" doesn't make any sense. Especially given the conversation. And stop with the assumptions, like that I hadn't studied something. Ironically that assertion IS a logical fallacy so before you can presume to preach it I suggest you learn it bitch.
|
Ad Hominem only applies when there is an argument being made, i.e. when there is just logic involved. Credibility enters into play when you begin to talk about purported facts or information, in which case the source certainly matters.
|
On September 05 2008 06:25 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Travis: Of course there is room for literal interpretations. But it is often said that those that can determine when interpretation calls for a literal or figurative translation are probably more intelligent.
Is this supposed to be a reply to:
"So we should not do our best to be literal in our discussions?"?
Because it certainly does not address that question.
For the sake of humoring you, let's put the original statement into a figurative context, so that
"has to be" is now "ought to be"
Has any point I made changed whatsoever?
You tried to nit-pick the fucking point as if it needed to be determined that there is no law mandating the physical impossibility of a less-than "credible" source existing.
Nit-pick what point?
I was attempting to illustrate my own point.
|
On September 05 2008 06:28 UnitarySpace wrote:
Ad Hominem only applies when there is an argument being made, i.e. when there is just logic involved. Credibility enters into play when you begin to talk about purported facts or information, in which case the source certainly matters.
Are you suggesting that the credibility of a source is not a subject of debate in of itself?
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Oh ok Travis.. you were LITERALLY asking me if I knew what credible means or "has" means? Sorry, I was confusing you with a nit-picking asshat.. guess I had it wrong.
|
Somebody used Ad Hominem incorrectly so I corrected it. I have no idea what anybody is talking about here.
|
I originally typed "US & Canada disapeared" in my post, but edited it out as yeah - it's a bit silly. However i feel it's the 'safe' choice, a little like choosing Austria if you live in Germany. I also don't agree with them (the canadians) still allowing spanking of children but other than that i only have nitpicking to throw at 'em. Yeah - Canada and many states are great choices indeed.
But if we remove them? :p Just for the sake of argument.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Australia, Britain, Germany or Italy are all fine choices imo.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Interesting subject with spanking btw.. that could be it's own thread/blog.. presonally I think the government has no right to ban "spanking" since the definition of spanking is so blurry and the implications of the government dictating parental roles is dangerous. Obviously it stops being "spanking" if you injure or harm the child severely.. but the common use of spanking has its place.
|
On September 05 2008 06:36 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Oh ok Travis.. you were LITERALLY asking me if I knew what credible means or "has" means? Sorry, I was confusing you with a nit-picking asshat.. guess I had it wrong.
As I said, I was illustrating a point.
So yes, I was literally asking you.
|
On September 05 2008 06:37 UnitarySpace wrote:
Somebody used Ad Hominem incorrectly so I corrected it. I have no idea what anybody is talking about here.
fair enough 
|
On September 05 2008 06:51 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Interesting subject with spanking btw.. that could be it's own thread/blog.. presonally I think the government has no right to ban "spanking" since the definition of spanking is so blurry and the implications of the government dictating parental roles is dangerous. Obviously it stops being "spanking" if you injure or harm the child severely.. but the common use of spanking has its place.
Well, i'm not sure if teachers are allowed to carry out corporal punishments in which case i strongly oppose the legislation, if limited to parents it's 'better' and doesn't necessarily have to be illegal.
Just saying that to clarify my position without thread hijacking (whatever's left of this thread. Got milk?).
|
The dissatisfaction you feel with yourself has more to do with your character than your height. Even if you do grow a few inches, you're probably still going to feel dissatisfied. Even strong, attractive 6'6" men are likely to be dissatisfied with something or other about themselves. If your desire to be tall were to be immediately fulfilled, you would find that your attention would redirect itself to something other than your height, i.e. you would then be likely to feel preoccupied about your phsysiognomy, or your intelligence or talents - or lack thereof.
I'm 5'11", and ever since I fully discovered around the age of 18 that the world is pervaded by arrogance, stupidity, and shallowness, I've often felt discontent with my height, since all that is contemptible about the common masses of filth in our society nevertheless tends to rub off even on those of the most noble dispositions. So in all honesty, it is quite difficult not to be preoccupied in the least with the superficialities of life, but if you consider the amount of people in the world who suffer from poverty, physical and mental diseases, and even things like starvation in places such as Africa, your suffering over such a trivial thing as your height then shows itself for what it truly is: mere vanity.
|
On September 05 2008 06:28 UnitarySpace wrote:
Ad Hominem only applies when there is an argument being made, i.e. when there is just logic involved. Credibility enters into play when you begin to talk about purported facts or information, in which case the source certainly matters.
On September 05 2008 06:37 UnitarySpace wrote:
Somebody used Ad Hominem incorrectly so I corrected it. I have no idea what anybody is talking about here.
Actually I wasn't using it incorrectly.
From wikipedia:
"The syllogism is at the core of deductive reasoning, where facts are determined by combining existing statements."
And:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."
So ad hominem is not used only when pure logic is involved. That's their deductive reasoning:
1. Source has no credibility.
2. Thus content is bullshit. (Factual claim)
On September 05 2008 06:25 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
kemoryan: The broken english in your post difuses any chance of a coherent thought being pulled from that. "How/what he is" doesn't make any sense. Especially given the conversation. And stop with the assumptions, like that I hadn't studied something. Ironically that assertion IS a logical fallacy so before you can presume to preach it I suggest you learn it bitch.
Sorry if its so difficult to understand, english is my third language and I do what I can. But yeah, I really messed up that post when I edited it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
