|
On September 07 2017 02:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 02:13 brian wrote:
and yet you still qualify your answer. and even further, continue to pretend other people are not giving you the answer you want.
suddenly you're willing to not see things in black and white, where earlier you insisted there was gray area in defending nazis. how quickly you'll say anything to support yourself is paralleled only by our dear president. your hypocrisy is endless.
to go so far as to say 'it's about form, not substance' and 'i don't care what the answer is' only further demonstrates your inability to have a discussion in good faith and that your concern lies mostly within thinking you've won an argument instead of having any kind of meaningful discussion on matters concerning the livelihood of other people. not that we needed any such reminder. I didn't qualify my answers. My answers were unequivocal. I only supplied my reasoning.
case in point.
|
United States42004 Posts
Chemo, good or bad? Please keep your answers brief and do not refer to cancer in them.
|
On September 07 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:
Chemo, good or bad? Please keep your answers brief and do not refer to cancer in them.
That's actually really easy : if cancer isn't involved then it's bad. Really bad.
I also want this post to live in honor or something :
On September 07 2017 01:55 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 22:43 Plansix wrote:
I could have just told him to read a book or educate himself. Expressing pride in one’s ignorance is beyond fucking basic.
Man you're the funniest person ever, honestly  I happen to have a MA in English, and another one in linguistics. The first thing you learn on anything beyond an incredibly basic level is that being versed in communication pretty much correlates to expressing complicated ideas in simple terms. Using thoroughly unnecessary big words to present your points, especially in long sequences of vapid nonsense, which you personally are guilty of 24/7, is a sign of not only an extremely limited grasp on language but also of poor understanding what efficient communication looks like. I'm pretty sure with your habits you're actually unable to communicate with an average POC without coming across as a condescending prick, which is super hilarious. It's like Einstein said. Any cretin can make subjects complicated but it takes mastery to simplify them.
Best post in months
|
On September 07 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:
Chemo, good or bad? Please keep your answers brief and do not refer to cancer in them.
Good.
|
On September 07 2017 02:25 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2017 02:13 brian wrote:
and yet you still qualify your answer. and even further, continue to pretend other people are not giving you the answer you want.
suddenly you're willing to not see things in black and white, where earlier you insisted there was gray area in defending nazis. how quickly you'll say anything to support yourself is paralleled only by our dear president. your hypocrisy is endless.
to go so far as to say 'it's about form, not substance' and 'i don't care what the answer is' only further demonstrates your inability to have a discussion in good faith and that your concern lies mostly within thinking you've won an argument instead of having any kind of meaningful discussion on matters concerning the livelihood of other people. not that we needed any such reminder. I didn't qualify my answers. My answers were unequivocal. I only supplied my reasoning. case in point.
Why don't you go to dictionary.com and look up the difference between "to explain" and "to qualify."
|
On September 07 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 02:25 brian wrote:On September 07 2017 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2017 02:13 brian wrote:
and yet you still qualify your answer. and even further, continue to pretend other people are not giving you the answer you want.
suddenly you're willing to not see things in black and white, where earlier you insisted there was gray area in defending nazis. how quickly you'll say anything to support yourself is paralleled only by our dear president. your hypocrisy is endless.
to go so far as to say 'it's about form, not substance' and 'i don't care what the answer is' only further demonstrates your inability to have a discussion in good faith and that your concern lies mostly within thinking you've won an argument instead of having any kind of meaningful discussion on matters concerning the livelihood of other people. not that we needed any such reminder. I didn't qualify my answers. My answers were unequivocal. I only supplied my reasoning. case in point. Why don't you go to dictionary.com and look up the difference between "to explain" and "to qualify."
because i'm not interested in notching a win on my internet arguments belt.
|
United States42004 Posts
On September 07 2017 02:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:
Chemo, good or bad? Please keep your answers brief and do not refer to cancer in them. Good.
But chemo is poison that kills people! Clearly you approve of killing people! And also slavery for some reason! I have finally caught you defending your ideological sacred cow of poison.
(this is literally what you did yesterday)
(it's why everyone was insisting upon giving you nuanced answers with context)
(and yet you still insisted that illegal immigration is a sacred cow of the left, despite the nuanced answers)
(exactly the way everyone fucking knew you would)
(which is why they didn't play your "good/bad" game)
|
On September 07 2017 02:37 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2017 02:25 brian wrote:On September 07 2017 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2017 02:13 brian wrote:
and yet you still qualify your answer. and even further, continue to pretend other people are not giving you the answer you want.
suddenly you're willing to not see things in black and white, where earlier you insisted there was gray area in defending nazis. how quickly you'll say anything to support yourself is paralleled only by our dear president. your hypocrisy is endless.
to go so far as to say 'it's about form, not substance' and 'i don't care what the answer is' only further demonstrates your inability to have a discussion in good faith and that your concern lies mostly within thinking you've won an argument instead of having any kind of meaningful discussion on matters concerning the livelihood of other people. not that we needed any such reminder. I didn't qualify my answers. My answers were unequivocal. I only supplied my reasoning. case in point. Why don't you go to dictionary.com and look up the difference between "to explain" and "to qualify." because i'm not interested in notching a win on my internet arguments belt.
So you are just going to accuse me of things that you don't even understand conceptually, and not give a damn when it is pointed out that you were in error. Got it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Eh, I think y'all might be overthinking the concept of a simple question a tad.
|
yep, want me to notch yours for you? 
|
United States42004 Posts
On September 07 2017 02:30 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:
Chemo, good or bad? Please keep your answers brief and do not refer to cancer in them. That's actually really easy : if cancer isn't involved then it's bad. Really bad.
No, cancer can be involved. Obviously the vast majority of the time cancer is involved because that's when chemo is used. Chemo is a cancer treatment. But you're not allowed to refer to cancer in your response because that would be introducing extraneous context, you have to simply give a good/bad response in order to allow for maximum misinterpreting of your response.
So I take it that you're opposed to chemo. Is it all medicine you hate you sick fuck?
|
On September 07 2017 02:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 02:30 Nevuk wrote:On September 07 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:
Chemo, good or bad? Please keep your answers brief and do not refer to cancer in them. That's actually really easy : if cancer isn't involved then it's bad. Really bad. No, cancer can be involved. Obviously the vast majority of the time cancer is involved because that's when chemo is used. Chemo is a cancer treatment. But you're not allowed to refer to cancer in your response because that would be introducing extraneous context, you have to simply give a good/bad response in order to allow for maximum misinterpreting of your response. So I take it that you're opposed to chemo. Is it all medicine you hate you sick fuck?
I only believe in homoepathic remedies that have been scientifically proven not to work, because science is a construct of the literati elite
|
On September 07 2017 02:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:
Chemo, good or bad? Please keep your answers brief and do not refer to cancer in them. Good. But chemo is poison that kills people! Clearly you approve of killing people! And also slavery for some reason! I have finally caught you defending your ideological sacred cow of poison. (this is literally what you did yesterday) (it's why everyone was insisting upon giving you nuanced answers with context) (and yet you still insisted that illegal immigration is a sacred cow of the left, despite the nuanced answers) (exactly the way everyone fucking knew you would) (which is why they didn't play your "good/bad" game)
Your mistake here is in juxtaposing something fairly neutral like chemo to something that is more intrinsically reprehensible (i.e. Bad) like illegal immigration. You can attack me for saying chemo is good, but those attacks aren't going to be particularly compelling. In contrast, making the argument that illegal immigration is good is far more vulnerable to attack because of the obvious human costs at stake. So when my liberal friends refuse to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a bad thing, I am going to be able to argumentatively abuse them in compelling ways. Of course, they could simply concede the point, but they won't it do it. And when they fail to offer good reasons for not doing so, I will supply my own as part of the argumentative attack.
|
United States42004 Posts
On September 07 2017 02:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 02:38 KwarK wrote:On September 07 2017 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:
Chemo, good or bad? Please keep your answers brief and do not refer to cancer in them. Good. But chemo is poison that kills people! Clearly you approve of killing people! And also slavery for some reason! I have finally caught you defending your ideological sacred cow of poison. (this is literally what you did yesterday) (it's why everyone was insisting upon giving you nuanced answers with context) (and yet you still insisted that illegal immigration is a sacred cow of the left, despite the nuanced answers) (exactly the way everyone fucking knew you would) (which is why they didn't play your "good/bad" game) Your mistake here is in juxtaposing something fairly neutral like chemo to something that is more intrinsically reprehensible (i.e. Bad) like illegal immigration. You can attack me for saying chemo is good, but those attacks aren't going to be particularly compelling. In contrast, making the argument that illegal immigration is good is far more vulnerable to attack because of the obvious human costs at stake. So when my liberal friends refuse to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a bad thing, I am going to be able to argumentatively abuse them in compelling ways. Of course, they could simply concede the point, but they won't it do it. And when they fail to offer good reasons for not doing so, I will supply my own as part of the argumentative attack.
Chemo isn't neutral, chemo is fucking awful for the people who need it. Chemo kills people. It just also kills cancer. It's a classic example of a good that is only a good when framed in the context of being the lesser of two evils. We would really rather chemo not be necessary, but given that it is necessary we are glad we have it.
It's a great parallel to illegal immigration.
I refuse to believe that you are accurately representing the position of your friends as "pro illegal immigration". I find it far, far more likely that they believe that there should be an expansion of the legal immigration system.
Let's say I think cancer patients having access marijuana to treat their symptoms is a good thing. It does not automatically follow that I think illegal drug dealing is a good thing. It's much more likely that I think that medicinal marijuana should be legalized. Same thing. You're extrapolating in the wrong direction by purposefully excluding context.
|
On September 07 2017 02:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:58 ChristianS wrote:On September 07 2017 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 21:51 ChristianS wrote:On September 06 2017 13:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 13:17 m4ini wrote:Actually, what makes a question loaded is the fixation on "yes/no", and not let nuanced answers pass. That's why i immediately told you that you're arguing in bad faith. Either that, or you're generally an obnoxious character, pick your poison i guess. I actually assume both. Correct, my question didn't ask for the nuance. That's the whole point of a yes/no question. What I wanted to do very specifically was to force the advocates and apologists for illegal immigration to really think about what they were arguing for. If someone wants to provide the nuance after answering the question, that's fine with me. However, anything short of directly answering the question is a dodge and intellectually dishonest. A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the asker is likely to respond by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question. You literally went by the definition of loaded question, and explained afterwards in detail why it was a loaded question. Of course you then go ahead and call it "not a loaded question", because..? To make it very clear: "giving the option to nuance it later on" doesn't make it not a loaded question. In fact, the only thing that means is that you'd "consider a nuanced answer" after the loaded question was answered. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're clueless about sentence structure as well as argumentative structure in general. Let me educate you. The problem with "when did you stop beating your wife" is that it presumes that the subject did beat his wife in the past. When I ask "Is illegal immigration bad," there is no underlying presumption. Nor am I leading the person that I am questioning to an answer that gives a similar unintended admission. This is why courts will let attorneys ask questions structured like "is illegal immigration bad" all day long, whereas attorneys cannot ask something structured along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife" in a vacuum (ie without first laying the proper foundation that the subject beat his wife). Saying that there is an equivalence between the two questions is simply retarded. You're smarter than this. The problem with "is _____ bad" is that it assumes ______ can be reduced to a binary. If you allow people to answer in a nuanced way that's not necessarily a problem, but you explicitly said anybody who puts any nuance in is being intellectually dishonest. Example: are taxes bad? Odds are you don't favor abolishing all taxes and running the government on bake sales, so you'd probably answer "no." But you also don't favor a 100% tax rate on all transactions, so maybe you should say "yes?" You'd like to express the idea that taxes are good to a point, and bad after, but the question asker won't allow that and accuses you of dodging the question if you say something like "excessive taxes are bad." You are clearly smart enough to understand this. Of course you can reduce things to binary binary good/bad assessments. I'm sure you'd have no trouble saying "slavery is bad" or "racism is bad." Your problem is that you lack either the courage to say that "illegal immigration is good because I get cheap lettuce out of it" or the savvy to say "yes, illegal immigration is bad, but we need it so that I can get my cheap lettuce." So taxes? Good or bad? Remember, if you give any kind of qualified "good to a point" or "necessary evil" or such, you're intellectually dishonest and lack the courage to answer the question instead of dodging. Either you want the government to be an unpaid volunteer organization, or you think all tax rates should be 100%. Was Henry Ford good or bad? Remember that if you answer "good" you're celebrating anti-Semitism, and if you answer "bad" you hate industrial efficiency and the automotive age. Let me show you how easy this is and how cowardly and intellectually lazy your whining about my original question is: Taxes are bad. Though they may be a necessary evil for government operations, they still are an appropriation of personal property and infringement upon civil liberty. Henry Ford was good. He was a titan of industry and a key part of the arsenal of democracy that beat the fascists in WW2. The critical point that you keep missing is that there is no right answer (my lettuce hypothetical above should have been a big tip off). This is about form, not substance. I don't care what answer people give. I just want them to give an honest answer. It is quite clear that you and 80% of the other liberal posters in the thread aren't quite up to par on this point.
So you think taxes are bad, but not bad in that they shouldn't exist, or that society should try to work toward not having them. Then what the fuck does it mean to say they're bad? If you don't think we should abolish them, you're saying that a world with no taxes is worse than a world with taxes. That means they're at least conditionally good. Or maybe you think we should abolish taxes entirely and have no government, in which case you're just an anarchist without the courage to admit it.
If you're wanting to draw a distinction between "explain" and "qualify," you clearly did the latter here. Explaining would fit into a sentence structure like "they're bad because ____" or "they're bad and _____." Qualifying is "they're bad but ______," for example "taxes are bad but they're a necessary evil."
So how's this: illegal immigration is bad. Not in the sense that the world would be better if it didn't happen, not in the sense that I would make moral judgments against illegal immigrants. Just bad in that it's good to follow the law. And if that's too intellectually dishonest for you, then reread your description of taxes and really, really try to tell me why it isn't just as ambiguous.
|
On September 07 2017 02:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:58 ChristianS wrote:On September 07 2017 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 21:51 ChristianS wrote:On September 06 2017 13:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 13:17 m4ini wrote:Actually, what makes a question loaded is the fixation on "yes/no", and not let nuanced answers pass. That's why i immediately told you that you're arguing in bad faith. Either that, or you're generally an obnoxious character, pick your poison i guess. I actually assume both. Correct, my question didn't ask for the nuance. That's the whole point of a yes/no question. What I wanted to do very specifically was to force the advocates and apologists for illegal immigration to really think about what they were arguing for. If someone wants to provide the nuance after answering the question, that's fine with me. However, anything short of directly answering the question is a dodge and intellectually dishonest. A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the asker is likely to respond by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question. You literally went by the definition of loaded question, and explained afterwards in detail why it was a loaded question. Of course you then go ahead and call it "not a loaded question", because..? To make it very clear: "giving the option to nuance it later on" doesn't make it not a loaded question. In fact, the only thing that means is that you'd "consider a nuanced answer" after the loaded question was answered. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're clueless about sentence structure as well as argumentative structure in general. Let me educate you. The problem with "when did you stop beating your wife" is that it presumes that the subject did beat his wife in the past. When I ask "Is illegal immigration bad," there is no underlying presumption. Nor am I leading the person that I am questioning to an answer that gives a similar unintended admission. This is why courts will let attorneys ask questions structured like "is illegal immigration bad" all day long, whereas attorneys cannot ask something structured along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife" in a vacuum (ie without first laying the proper foundation that the subject beat his wife). Saying that there is an equivalence between the two questions is simply retarded. You're smarter than this. The problem with "is _____ bad" is that it assumes ______ can be reduced to a binary. If you allow people to answer in a nuanced way that's not necessarily a problem, but you explicitly said anybody who puts any nuance in is being intellectually dishonest. Example: are taxes bad? Odds are you don't favor abolishing all taxes and running the government on bake sales, so you'd probably answer "no." But you also don't favor a 100% tax rate on all transactions, so maybe you should say "yes?" You'd like to express the idea that taxes are good to a point, and bad after, but the question asker won't allow that and accuses you of dodging the question if you say something like "excessive taxes are bad." You are clearly smart enough to understand this. Of course you can reduce things to binary binary good/bad assessments. I'm sure you'd have no trouble saying "slavery is bad" or "racism is bad." Your problem is that you lack either the courage to say that "illegal immigration is good because I get cheap lettuce out of it" or the savvy to say "yes, illegal immigration is bad, but we need it so that I can get my cheap lettuce." So taxes? Good or bad? Remember, if you give any kind of qualified "good to a point" or "necessary evil" or such, you're intellectually dishonest and lack the courage to answer the question instead of dodging. Either you want the government to be an unpaid volunteer organization, or you think all tax rates should be 100%. Was Henry Ford good or bad? Remember that if you answer "good" you're celebrating anti-Semitism, and if you answer "bad" you hate industrial efficiency and the automotive age. Let me show you how easy this is and how cowardly and intellectually lazy your whining about my original question is: Taxes are bad. Though they may be a necessary evil for government operations, they still are an appropriation of personal property and infringement upon civil liberty. Henry Ford was good. He was a titan of industry and a key part of the arsenal of democracy that beat the fascists in WW2.The critical point that you keep missing is that there is no right answer (my lettuce hypothetical above should have been a big tip off). This is about form, not substance. I don't care what answer people give. I just want them to give an honest answer. It is quite clear that you and 80% of the other liberal posters in the thread aren't quite up to par on this point.
I'm sure this is purely coincidence, but I couldn't help it...
Here's xDaunt's "good" guy getting awarded by Nazi's, I wonder how many other "good" men xDaunt thinks Nazi's awarded?
Henry Ford receiving the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Nazi officials, 1938
![[image loading]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8zTj8KO90V0/V9t7T5TGWKI/AAAAAAAALEE/-5s1g7VuNuQdsgm1Tx72sr4DU8X92GkMQCLcB/s1600/henry_ford_grand_cross_1938.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 07 2017 02:30 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:
Chemo, good or bad? Please keep your answers brief and do not refer to cancer in them. That's actually really easy : if cancer isn't involved then it's bad. Really bad. I also want this post to live in honor or something : Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:55 Kickboxer wrote:On September 06 2017 22:43 Plansix wrote:
I could have just told him to read a book or educate himself. Expressing pride in one’s ignorance is beyond fucking basic.
Man you're the funniest person ever, honestly I happen to have a MA in English, and another one in linguistics. The first thing you learn on anything beyond an incredibly basic level is that being versed in communication pretty much correlates to expressing complicated ideas in simple terms. Using thoroughly unnecessary big words to present your points, especially in long sequences of vapid nonsense, which you personally are guilty of 24/7, is a sign of not only an extremely limited grasp on language but also of poor understanding what efficient communication looks like. I'm pretty sure with your habits you're actually unable to communicate with an average POC without coming across as a condescending prick, which is super hilarious. It's like Einstein said. Any cretin can make subjects complicated but it takes mastery to simplify them. Best post in months
He was way cooler when I played Dota with him. But that entire thing was Eastern Europe is perplexed by American racism.
|
Thread's been getting really shat up lately, the latest temp ban comes as a relief.
|
Returning rude speech for rude comments doesn't prove the point, and sc-darkness isn't bad at the language. I hope to see the rest of bo1b's posting back soon.
|
as usual, much of the threads comes from trolling/factually false nonsense; and from people trying to counter that nonsense, with danglars at the center of an awful lot of it.
here's this little gem:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=8769#175363
talk about an unjustified comparison! and he's doubling down on it in the thread. boooo!
will danglars ever get actioned as he deserves? he's been dragging the thread down for a long while now. half the thread knows he argues in bad faith constantly, yet the mods refuse to take action against someone that is known to argue in bad faith constantly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
