Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 561 of 638 (737170)
09-18-2014 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by NoNukes
09-18-2014 10:35 AM


Re: The Tao
All that said, I am not sure it negates my conclusion of a large population of observers gathering evidence.
NoNukes writes:
We only need one or two.
Perhaps you are right. The needs for answers for large populations is perhaps the subject of a separate debate. I accept the idea that volume of evidence does not necessarily trump quality of evidence.
NoNukes writes:
Does not matter what everyone else does.
"does not matter" is a broad brush I think, but agree it does not matter for our conversation here.
NoNukes writes:
So where are the one or two?
If you are happy with one, then I am an observer gathering evidence. That is a fact as I understand the definitions of fact and observe and gather and evidence.
NoNukes writes:
What is the logic behind citing large numbers of people who accept a proposition vs one or two pieces of evidence?
If large numbers of people think they are seeing evidence, it begs the question (to me) whether something is there to investigate. I have no problem with the one or two pieces of evidence approach if that can get you to the truth.
NoNukes writes:
You've already acknowledged that the bulk of those people are not looking at evidence,
Perhaps I did not communicate well. My recollection is that is not what I said. I acknowledged that in my opinion most people are intellectually lazy and in my opinion many people are led to ideas. I never said those people are not looking at evidence. If I did, I retract. If you could stick to what I actually say rather than your characterization of what I say, we could save some time.
As to characterizations, I am willing to let it slide on occasion, we all slip into that sort of thing without thinking. Too much of it, however, might lead me to believe you are using what I construe as an intellectually dishonest debate tactic.
Edited by taiji2, : pasted in wrong reply

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2014 10:35 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2014 7:16 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 562 of 638 (737171)
09-18-2014 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by Percy
09-18-2014 9:09 AM


Re: The Tao
I looked fanciful up in Merriam-Webster and found no reference to evidence in any of the accepted definitions.
Percy writes:
And Ringo looked up "fanciful" for you in Merriam-Webster and found that it *did* reference "evidence" in his Message 541:
quote:
1: marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience link
Perhaps you can highlight or color code the word for me. I still do not find the word evidence in what ringo provided.[/qs]
Percy writes:
Every time someone uses different terminology you seem to get lost.
In my opinion, diferent terminology is not allowed when someone claims anything "by definition". In my opinion, the definition should include what is claimed. In this case it does not. You can argue inference, but inference is not definition.
The rest of your comment appears(to me) to be your observation on my competency or character. I will revisit readings on what is considered intellectually dishonest debate tactics. For the moment I will allow that may not be what you intend.
Edited by taiji2, : No reason given.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by Percy, posted 09-18-2014 9:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2014 5:22 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 570 by Percy, posted 09-18-2014 8:32 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 576 by ringo, posted 09-19-2014 11:55 AM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 564 of 638 (737174)
09-18-2014 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by Dr Adequate
09-18-2014 5:22 PM


Re: The Tao
In my opinion, diferent terminology is not allowed when someone claims anything "by definition". In my opinion, the definition should include what is claimed.
Dr. Adequate writes:
Now you're just being picky.
In my opinion, that is your opinion. I have no problem if that is what you think, but I do not see how your opinion of me furthers the debate. Please stop throwing me straw men that I must respond to.
Dr. Adequate writes:
Suppose I said "By definition, a vegetarian does not eat the flesh of animals". This is true; and the fact that you can't find a dictionary which specifically uses the phrase "the flesh of animals" rather than "meat" in its definition is irrelevant.
Thank you for this excellent opportunity to manifest truth.
I googled Merrian-Webster for definitions of the words vegetarian and meat. I could print the definitions out for you, but that would make for a long post.
Merrian-Webster does indeed specify a person who does not eat meat as the definition of vegetarian, giving no reference other than to the word herbivore.
Merrian-Webster provides a lengthy definition of meat which includes "the edible part of something" as distinguished from its covering. Webster went on to specify nuts as an example.
It is a fact that if I took meat, by definition, and referred to the definition of vegetarian in the same source, I could be led to believe that vegetarians did not eat nuts. That is untrue in most instances based on my personal experience with vegetarians.
My conclusion is that the definition of vegetarian in Merrian-Webster is flawed. If truth is that vegetarians do not eat the flesh of animals, then that is what the authoritative source should have said. The definition they gave is misleading. Meat is by definition not only the flesh of animals.
Dr. Adequate writes:
And if you think it is relevant,
asked and answered
Dr. Adequate writes:
then you should not forget that there are no rules restricting who can write a dictionary, I could turn out a very short one myself. A lot of words would be missing, but you'd find at least one entry under V.
I cited Merrian-Webster because of the assumption that Merriam-Webster would be viewed as an authoritative source without challenge. I do contend that in the general population Merrian-Webster as an authoritative source is accepted, seldom with challenge. Your offer to write a dictionary I see as just being arbitrary and argumentative.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2014 5:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2014 6:57 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 568 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2014 7:51 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 569 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2014 8:02 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 566 of 638 (737177)
09-18-2014 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 565 by Coyote
09-18-2014 6:57 PM


Re: Arguing over definitions
Coyote writes:
In the vast majority of debates I have seen on this site, over a number of years, it is creationists who want to change standard scientific terms and who will go on at length in an effort to do so.
Since you are responding to my post, I presume this vague reference to your past has to do with me.
The reference I presume you are making is to the use of the word fanciful.
I did not realize fanciful was a standard scientific term. And no, I do not wish to pursue this further because it is boring and unnecessary. And yes, if you will give me the ISBN number of a book of scientific terms that should not be changed, I will abide with that........ maybe not.
Coyote writes:
It becomes very boring, the more so because it is unnecessary.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2014 6:57 PM Coyote has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 572 of 638 (737183)
09-18-2014 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 570 by Percy
09-18-2014 8:32 PM


Re: The Tao
Ok,
Having found no potential for intellectually honest debate on this thread, I will leave all you good people to go about whatever it is you do.
If you don't understand intellectually honest debate, look it up.
Sorry for having wasted your time.
You are excused for wasting mine.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by Percy, posted 09-18-2014 8:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 573 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2014 8:46 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 574 by Percy, posted 09-18-2014 9:39 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 575 by Omnivorous, posted 09-18-2014 10:05 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 583 by Taq, posted 09-19-2014 3:54 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 580 of 638 (737210)
09-19-2014 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Stile
09-19-2014 1:00 PM


Re: Current Summary
Since you people have taken your parting shots, I shall take mine.
From my experiences as a soldier in Viet Nam, a very good analogy to the behavior I see on this forum comes to mind. We (U.S. Army) sometimes worked joint operations with ARVN (Army Republic of Vietnam) troops - south Vietnamese.
One evening, just after dark, our unit (C Troop, 1st Squadron, 1st Armored Cavalry Regiment) had our tanks and armored personnel carriers (APCs) circled into a defensive position for the night. Inside our perimeter was a company of ARVN troops who were working the mission with us. We came under attack from the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). We received mortar fire, rocket propelled grenade fire (RPG), and small arms fire.
The American troops of my unit mounted their vehicles and returned fire until the NVA broke off the attack and withdrew.
When the firing stopped, not a single ARVN soldier was in sight. They had all crawled under the tanks and APCs to hide. Talking to my fellow soldiers after the firefight, none had observed any ARVN soldier engage in the battle. They had all acted like cowards. These are the same ARVN soldiers we had been working with for days. Those previous days had involved no combat, the enemy had not been found.
These same ARVN soldiers in the days prior had strutted, brandished their weapons, and were convincing in looking tough and appearing to be soldiers. When it came time to be soldiers, when the bullets started to fly, they proved themselves cowards and ran. Interestingly, the next day, they resumed their peacock strutting, pretending to look like soldiers, acting as if nothing of moment had happened.
How is this analogy pertinent? What I have seen on this forum is intellectual cowardice. Any time a relevant issue is raised, if you cannot respond logically, you "crawl under the tank" using intellectually dishonest debate tactic to avoid the question, blow smoke up my ass, and pretend that it is me causing the problem.
There are some very good articles on intellectually dishonest debate tactics. I would suggest you read them, but it appears you already have and use them to great effect as your modus operandi.
You may further argue that I have misconstrued what is going on here. I make my statements not without independent verification. My wife is a lawyer. I had her read some of what has gone on here and asked her opinion on whether the debate was honest. She concurred that what she had seen was not proper debate, and that such tactics would not be allowed in a court of law. In a court of law, objection would be raised and the judge would sustain.
She further said that the legal system would not work without rigidly enforced rules of debate.
Now, before any of you clever people take my analogy out of context and claim I am the one to run from this discussion, let me be clear......... I am willing and would like nothing better than to continue a discussion of creation versus evolution.
But I will do so only in the format of intellectually honest debate. A venue which promotes intellectually dishonest debate tactics is suitable only for mind-fuck games and I am just not interested.
Specific shot to PERCY........ if a forum moderator is not there to guarantee honest debate, what is he there for?
Specific parting shot to Stile: Thank you, you verified with specific comment "we trolled the troll" my observation coming into this discussion that what was going on here was not debate but a game in which you people assume a troll, you people exhibit your own troll behavior ( intellectually dishonest debate), then you wave your troll flags in the air when the first party leaves (having or having not exhibited troll behavior along the way). Your observed ritual is to always claim "he was a troll" at the end. Like the sage Percy once told me...... maybe you should look deep within yourselves.
Specific shot to everyone... this forum could be an excellent platform for debate. There are some smart people here. There are interesting issues to be discussed. Truth could manifest if allowed. But it "ain't gonna happen" as long as you continue to play this ridiculous game.
My comments stand as a warning to anyone entering this forum. You will find only intellectually dishonest debate here. What they do here is play a game of what might be called "shoot the troll in the barrel". If they do not have a troll, they seek to turn you into one by their own troll behavior. Even if they do not succeed, they will end the game by calling you troll. That is how it works. Enter at your own risk. It is a mind game only. Finding truth is irrelevant to these people.
Edited by taiji2, : No reason given.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Stile, posted 09-19-2014 1:00 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 581 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2014 3:46 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 582 by Admin, posted 09-19-2014 3:51 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 584 by Percy, posted 09-19-2014 3:56 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 586 by Omnivorous, posted 09-19-2014 4:05 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 588 by Tangle, posted 09-19-2014 5:23 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 585 of 638 (737216)
09-19-2014 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by NoNukes
09-19-2014 3:46 PM


Re: Current Summary
Seriously dude,
All that i ask of anyone new entering this thread is to go back over the old posts and form their own judgement.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2014 3:46 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2014 4:33 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 589 of 638 (737224)
09-19-2014 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by Omnivorous
09-19-2014 4:05 PM


Re: Current Summary
Omnivarious writes:
Huh. I hate it when people play the vet card, but...
Ok, seeing you want to go there. Sorry that bothers you. My Vietnam experience was my single most defining experience in life. If my pulling analogies from that experience bothers you, it is your problem not mine. I really think though, your comment is just one more duck and dodge trick. I could think of no better analogy for defining cowardice than the real world one I gave you. A combat veteran would have acknowledged and gone on from there. Which leads us to:
omniwarrior writes:
I'm 63, Army vet, there--39th Engineer Battalion (Combat), "Fight Build and Destroy"--and other balmy environs and missions that don't get into files.
Yeah, I knew some engineers. A few of them even "saw some shit". I have always had high respect for engineers. Based on the crap I hear coming from you though, I am not convinced you ever saw combat. Vague references to balmy environs doesn't cut it. Only combat veterans have a right to criticize combat veterans. If you are not one, get out of my face.
omnirelevance writes:
My experiences were relevant, too: especially with the candy-asses who had to take their turn in the barrel and couldn't take the heat.
This candy ass actually saw combat...... a matter of record. I killed and saw my buddies killed, also a matter of record. In the army I was in, being called a candy ass, especially if called that by some REMF (Rear Echelon Mother Fucker) usually led to further discussion. We can go there if you wish. Come visit me in my town
omnidodge*duck writes:
You had to be coaxed into staying past a few gruff words from jar, and went all squealy girly when you faced sharp return fire (refutation caliber).
I had to be coaxed into staying in what I knew to be a setup. If you think I am a squealy girly, I gave you an open invitation above to come see me and check for yourself. Insults from behind the anonymity of this forum does not cut it.
For everyone else, I did have no intention of replying further on this thread. Combat veterans dispise "pretenders". A pretender is one who claims the right to talk about combat when they haven't been in combat. Proximity in some rear area of a combat zone doesn't qualify. From all I have heard, Mr. Omniquibble is just that, a pretender, and I could not let his loose remarks go by.
Mr. Omni, my offer of a reunion is a real one. Do come see me. Just don't candy-ass, squealy-girly out on me when you get here.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by Omnivorous, posted 09-19-2014 4:05 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 590 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2014 6:40 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 591 by Percy, posted 09-19-2014 6:52 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 592 by Omnivorous, posted 09-19-2014 7:20 PM taiji2 has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 593 of 638 (737230)
09-19-2014 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by Percy
09-19-2014 6:52 PM


Re: Current Summary
Percy,
Just to clarify. I reviewed my remarks and am pretty sure I never said anything like "settle things physically". As my wife would say, that might be considered an actionable remark. I was responding to a Vietnam veteran who had in incomplete view of an analogy I had made which referenced Vietnam. I offered a reunion between Vietnam veterans to further discuss the matter if he wished to have a reunion. Reunions between veterans are not uncommon. I was not opening a new topic, but responding to a specific message.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by Percy, posted 09-19-2014 6:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by JonF, posted 09-19-2014 7:37 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 597 by Percy, posted 09-19-2014 7:49 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 594 of 638 (737231)
09-19-2014 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by Omnivorous
09-19-2014 7:20 PM


Re: Current Summary
So I take that as a no, you do not seek a reunion?
And yes, I am all I have said. I can provide DD214, unit citations, personal citations.......... I have evidence galore. If you ever want to attend a reunion, I can show it to you.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by Omnivorous, posted 09-19-2014 7:20 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 595 of 638 (737232)
09-19-2014 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by Omnivorous
09-19-2014 7:20 PM


Re: Current Summary
Smirk is your word, not mine. But I do doubt your agency to speak as a combat veteran based on your comments. And no, I do not dismiss every combat engineer as suspect. I have personal experiences where I have observed great personal bravery from the group of combat engineers.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by Omnivorous, posted 09-19-2014 7:20 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 599 of 638 (737238)
09-20-2014 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 598 by Omnivorous
09-19-2014 11:38 PM


Re: Confirmation bias, taiji2 and me
In your post 589, you very sarcastically commented that I can talk plain when I want to. Since that is what you request, that is what I will give. My plain talk might include invectives when I get pissed, but I presume that will be allowed as you requested plain talk.
First, the only reason I am responding is the fact that you offered an apology "of sorts". I will therefore "sort of" accept that apology and give my own "dust-up", presuming I understand that to mean some sort of after-action report.
The first thing I want to make clear is that I am not a liar. The Vietnam experience I told is absolutely true to the best of my recollection after almost 45 years. I was an artillery officer in Vietnam. I arrived in country a second lieutenant and left country a first lieutenant. Ten months of my tour was spent as a forward observer... three months with an infantry company and seven months with an armored cavalry troop. If you don't know what a forward observer is, it involves doing the same as everyone else with the added duty of calling in artillery fire when needed. I spent two months flying as an aerial observer in support of the armored cavalry squadron. This involves flying in a light observation helicopter (LOH) and calling in artillery when a target is found. I left Vietnam with a purple heart, bronze star with two oak leaf clusters and a V device, and an air medal with oak leaf cluster. I give this information not to impress, but because even your latest post showed remaining doubt as to my authenticity. I am what I say I am.
As to your take on the ARVN. To be honest, if there were people like you in my army with your very learned academic views on the culture of the ARVN soldier, I never encountered them during my tour. And that said with the caveat that I was an officer and probably would have heard more sophisticated views from my peers than had I been an enlisted man. The consensus view of ARVN by all my fellow soldiers was that ARVN were cowards and not to be trusted very far. In combat, there was neither the time nor the inclination to pursue sophisticated academic views on culture.
There was one exception. We did an op south of Da Nang with a regular ARVN company that had good officers and this unit did its job well. They took casualties, they fought, they were good soldiers. They were the exception, not the rule. I say this having recollection that we did joint ops with the ARVN equivalent of our army ranger units. They sucked.
Enough about Vietnam.
Now to the rest of it.
My chronology to the EVC forum:
I had googled for places to discuss Taoism on the net. Calling yourself Taoist is quite lonely. There are no churches. The one brick and mortar place I found turned out to be a place where they teach Tai Chi and also offer a thing called chanting .... which involves white people dressing up in chinese robes and little beanie hats and doing incantations in a foreign language. Not very fulfilling, hence I sought discussion on the web.
I fell across an interfaith forum. Not much in the way of Taoism, but I did try to discuss my cosmological views there with little reward. I then sought a better place to discuss cosmology and this led me to EVC. Entering the forum, the Intelligent Design thread caught my attention and that is where I went.
I read through the thread we have been on and entered with the reservations I have already discussed at length. What I said about what you people here are doing is not my imagination. You have some weird game going here where you presume anyone coming into the discussion is a phony out to make trouble..... a troll in your words. I expressed my observation of this game of yours early on and have been taking a raft of shit for it ever since.
You mentioned dog-piling in your post. That is a pale description of what goes on here. I found myself in single debate with a raft of hostile responders who issue insults, veiled or open, at almost every turn. I made conscious effort to not respond with name calling, and frankly until you pushed my veteran buttons I do not recall having done so. I found that any topic relevant bit of logic I presented was ignored unless it could be twisted and thrown back with derisive comments.
You say my language was sharp. Did I make derisive and insulting remarks? Outright insults?
You people here bait your guests with the deliberate intention of finding the right trigger for their emotional response. That is not debate. That is mind-fuck.
So,,,,,, long story short, I entered the forum honestly and was not treated honestly. I never told a lie or had a hidden agenda. What you saw was what I had. You treated me, and seem to treat all who enter here, with the presumption that they are liars. Maybe people are vetted into your "circle" at some point after passing some sort of test. Who knows, who the fuck cares. If you think yourself intellectually sophisticated, be fucking man enough to admit the game you play.
As to the "sort of" apology. To the extent that your apology was sincere, I accept it. As to your Vietnam service, if you say you saw combat I will not call you a liar. I will tell you that you are the first combat vet I have ever met who comes out of the gate with another vet with the kind of shit you were talking to me. That can get you killed dude or at least seriously fucked up. Your comment that the things you said to me were premeditated and designed to push my buttons makes it all the worse. If I knew you deliberately fucked with me like that and you were within reach, things would go bad, You seriously are absolutely not like any vet I have ever met. I have never met anyone who would do that shit to another vet.
Anyhow, you sophisticates keep on going with your game. I do pity the poor fools who fall into here. And yes, despite all your posturing, what you do is intellectually dishonest.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by Omnivorous, posted 09-19-2014 11:38 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by Omnivorous, posted 09-20-2014 5:15 AM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 601 by Percy, posted 09-20-2014 7:55 AM taiji2 has replied
 Message 602 by NoNukes, posted 09-20-2014 8:38 AM taiji2 has replied
 Message 603 by ringo, posted 09-20-2014 12:18 PM taiji2 has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 604 of 638 (737247)
09-20-2014 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 603 by ringo
09-20-2014 12:18 PM


Re: Confirmation bias, taiji2 and me
Thank you ringo.
It is hard to paint without using too large a brush. You have always been civil and I appreciate that. There are others as well, specifically RAZD who proceded in discussion without structuring his comments as if he presumed a fool.
To you and all others I might have forgotten to mention that treated me with civility here, I apologize if my comments seemed to include you. That was not my intent.
And yes, I will not relinquish my right to the last word until all future reference to me or the things I have said has ceased.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by ringo, posted 09-20-2014 12:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 610 by ringo, posted 09-21-2014 2:10 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 605 of 638 (737249)
09-20-2014 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 602 by NoNukes
09-20-2014 8:38 AM


Re: Confirmation bias, taiji2 and me
I place no value on your opinion of my arguments. Your comments continue to be inflammatory. I choose not to respond further to your brand of incivility.
Edited by taiji2, : changed word provocative to inflammatory.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by NoNukes, posted 09-20-2014 8:38 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 606 of 638 (737251)
09-20-2014 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 601 by Percy
09-20-2014 7:55 AM


Re: Confirmation bias, taiji2 and me
The digressions are not mine.
When you say "we disagree with you", I can read that as a statement that you speak for all others on the forum. Is that what you are saying?
I have spoken to the obstacles I have found in presenting arguments on this forum. In a forum of honest debate, I might or might not be able to do so. In a dishonest debate there is no chance at all. There has been no opportunity to find out one way or the other whether my arguments might be valid.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by Percy, posted 09-20-2014 7:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 608 by Percy, posted 09-20-2014 4:38 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024