quote:

Originally posted by Dmatrox well how about this, YOU'RE A POO POO HEAD uh oh in before the lock

hey don't mess with me or i'll e-beat-you-up.

quote:

I don't know, I haven't seen a hell of a lot of US bashing threads of late. Sure - there are users like Cyrus whose favourite pastime is to bash America, but they're generally outnumbered, and seem to have been focussing on Israel of late.

Yeah its been a bit more split in the last bit due in part to a couple israeli assasinations. I probably come off as pro-bush when I'm not, but I just hate when people just start a thread to bash the USA and bush without good reason or logic behind it and then they decide to call Americans the usual sheep for watching american tv as their logic. Then they criticize the war but offer no real solutions to the problem. Drives me nuts.

Bickering about the definition of a word is generally not the most productive activity, I would agree.

However, when you're debating with someone who refuses to distinguish between two things which are clearly not identical you only have two choices:

1. Try to strictly define the important terms so that the distinction between those two things is clear.

or

2. Ignore them since they obviously have no interest in putting forth a valid argument.

Either one of these could be seen as "paralyzing any constructive debate." The real solution would of course be for people to stop relying on extremely broad definitions in order to equivocate distinct objects, but so long as people are able to advance their "argument" by doing so I doubt we'll see an end to that.

I've basically resigned myself to responding with the second move at this point. There are a lot of people who seem to like to go out on the web and look up a bunch of political advocacy and then think they've acquired great insight into the subject matter, but then when they get into a debate which gets more detailed and specific than the articles they've been reading they're totally lost. At this point they seem to just try to obfuscate the issue by calling into question everything from the distinction between two separate objects to basic philosophical and scientific premises such as the possibility of knowledge.

Since they generally don't know much about these fundamental issues either, you can either stop responding or try to explain ideas which have taken some of the greatest philosophical minds in history hundreds of pages to explain. I certainly don't have the time (or the desire) to do that, so the conversation usually just breaks off sooner or later depending on how quickly I lose interest in their evasive maneuvers and semantic games.

This is pretty much a problem anywhere that political discussions go on, particularly in larger groups of people. If you're actually interested in getting to the bottom of issues instead of mudslinging all you can really do is try to ignore the people who don't have anything interesting to contribute and concentrate on talking to the people who do. Problem is, those people almost always agree with me; funny thing, that.

But I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles. All you can do is try to make the best of it.

Back from lunch looks like the voice of reason has stopped by.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter There are a lot of people who seem to like to go out on the web and look up a bunch of political advocacy and then think they've acquired great insight into the subject matter, but then when they get into a debate which gets more detailed and specific than the articles they've been reading they're totally lost. At this point they seem to just try to obfuscate the issue by calling into question everything from the distinction between two separate objects to basic philosophical and scientific premises such as the possibility of knowledge. Since they generally don't know much about these fundamental issues either, you can either stop responding or try to explain ideas which have taken some of the greatest philosophical minds in history hundreds of pages to explain. I certainly don't have the time (or the desire) to do that, so the conversation usually just breaks off sooner or later depending on how quickly I lose interest in their evasive maneuvers and semantic games.

I like to call it the ‘prove it’ tactic, which is a favorite of creationists and some people on this board (and other boards too). This is where someone demands the other person provide proof for each part of his argument even if it’s common knowledge or generally excepted fact, but this same person feels he is not obligated to prove any of his allegations. The burden of proof should be equally shared by each person to support his or her position. An example would be saying evolution is bunch of bunk, then demand the other person prove it’s true. If I use a fact or statistic that isn’t widely know I’m more than happy to provide sources, but I’m not going to waste my time researching facts, while some sits back and bombards me with ‘prove this and prove that’.

quote:

If you're actually interested in getting to the bottom of issues instead of mudslinging all you can really do is try to ignore the people who don't have anything interesting to contribute and concentrate on talking to the people who do. Problem is, those people almost always agree with me; funny thing, that.

What can I say great minds think alike

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Problem is, those people almost always agree with me; funny thing, that.

So true!

The only reasonable debaters I can think of who I've disagreed with lately are Epicurus and arctic, the former who seems to have completely disappeared. Damn it!

igottaknow, stop trying to look like you're criticizing these irritants from the top down; we all know you've contributed to the situation by making your own set of unsubstantiated claims and one-liners and telling other people that it's their job to disprove you. The burden of proof is NOT equally shared, it is ALWAYS on the person MAKING an assertion, that is one of the fundamental principles of logic and debate.

If someone were actually "bombarding" you then that would be one thing, but when you refuse to back up even one single thing you post, that's another story entirely. Do you not realize that you're the butt of much of the criticism in this thread?

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

^--- Want a hug?

Oh I almost forgot to define 'hug' so you won't be confused (defintion 1. that is)

hug:
1. To clasp or hold closely, especially in the arms, as in affection; embrace.
2. To hold steadfastly to; cherish: He still hugs his outmoded beliefs.
3. To stay close to: a sailboat hugging the shore.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

Last edited by igottaknow on Apr-25-2004 at 18:47

Hmm, anyone else thinking that we have a new married couple of the month here?

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Hmm, anyone else thinking that we have a new married couple of the month here?

are you asking me out?

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy are you asking me out?

Nah, sorry, but I think we don't stand a chance to gain the couple of the month title considering the fierce competition here.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Nah, sorry, but I think we don't stand a chance to gain the couple of the month title considering the fierce competition here.

phew

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy phew

Maybe next month, dear

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow ^--- Want a hug? Oh I almost forgot to define 'hug' so you won't be confused (defintion 1. that is) hug: 1. To clasp or hold closely, especially in the arms, as in affection; embrace. 2. To hold steadfastly to; cherish: He still hugs his outmoded beliefs. 3. To stay close to: a sailboat hugging the shore.

You seem to be forgetting that I've never been the one to ask people their definitions - rather, I've actually presented realistic definitions to the ones who constantly equivocate or question them.

It's a rather silly tactic to accuse people who state the proper definitions of paralyzing constructive debate, when the debate was already paralyzed by the people who were equivocating and using ridiculous subjective/postmodern definitions in the first place.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here