|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 05/29/2007 : 08:49:27 [Permalink]
|
Bgal:
Now Kil is pissed because I didn't sit back and take being told I drew an invalid conclusion just so Kil could pacify Dude's a-hole behavior. |
In the context of the debate I was having with Dude, it is this statement
Bgal:
I'd be more than happy to reconsider the conclusions I've drawn from my limited experience with the members. |
that I used as having both the qualifier and an example of faulty induction.
That is how it reads and I took it at face value. To my thinking, in my defense of your opinion, how you arrived at it is a separate issue. Whatever came later, in support of your opinion, is also a separate issue.
I deconstructed the argument for a reason. If you didn't mean by saying “limited experience” that your experience was actually “limited” then perhaps you should have said what you meant to say.
In any case, not once did I say that your opinion could not be challenged by Dude based on how it was arrived at. That was not my point in the thread and it still isn't. That was not a bone I threw to Dude in order to pacify him. As for his behavior in that thread, that is yet another issue that again has nothing to do with my differences with Dude about how I see the real argument that you have now proclaimed as not important. I don't agree. Now, lost in this mess of personal crap is an actual debate on a subject worth exploring.
Sigh…
You know, it occurs to me as I am writing this that I may have been the most misunderstood person in the debate by all sides. Just a thought. I dunno…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/29/2007 : 12:25:36 [Permalink]
|
be-loonatic-gal said:
| Do you have any evidence the Greens in England are different from the Greens in the USA? I thought not. Can't support your irrational attack on me so you run away. What a surprise. |
There really is no point in trying to speak with you. You are so entrenched in your absurd conclusion that you are willing to falsely conflate two seperate and distinct political parties to try and "prove" your point.
I don't need to provide evidence that the US and UK greens are different from one another, because THEY SELF EVIDENTLY ARE NOT THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY.
The other thread's argument was about the US green party. You don't get to drag in another, different, political party and falsely conflate the two in order to support your original unsupportable claim.
Please, go back to ignoring me.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 13:53:18 [Permalink]
|
Hell, The Green Party of the United States isn't even the same party as The Greens/Green Party USA. And the former is only an "affiliate of" the European Green Party, of which the Green Party - UK is a member party.
But this is beside the point. If beskeptigal wishes to use the GPUK as an example of "Green Party woo-woo," then she is the one who has to provide the evidence that they're the same sort of people as in the Green Party discussed in the other thread as regards their woo-wooness. But rather than do that, she simply demands that someone else prove the opposite. As she's done a few other times in the last few months.
If you make a claim, beskeptigal - say, "the sky is blue" - then whether you've done so implicitly or explicitly, whether stated as opinion or as fact, if someone asks "do you have evidence that the sky is blue?" the correct response is never "do you have any evidence that the sky is not blue?" That's called shifting the burden of proof. And while it's a great rhetorical and political tool, its obvious bullying intent falls flat on these forums.
This isn't about "anal word definitions" or whether the Greens in the US (which ones?) are the same as the Greens in the UK. This is about you, beskeptigal, being irrational in your argumentation.
But you don't care. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 00:44:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bgal:
Now Kil is pissed because I didn't sit back and take being told I drew an invalid conclusion just so Kil could pacify Dude's a-hole behavior. |
In the context of the debate I was having with Dude, it is this statement
Bgal:
I'd be more than happy to reconsider the conclusions I've drawn from my limited experience with the members. |
that I used as having both the qualifier and an example of faulty induction.
That is how it reads and I took it at face value. To my thinking, in my defense of your opinion, how you arrived at it is a separate issue. Whatever came later, in support of your opinion, is also a separate issue.
I deconstructed the argument for a reason. If you didn't mean by saying “limited experience” that your experience was actually “limited” then perhaps you should have said what you meant to say.
In any case, not once did I say that your opinion could not be challenged by Dude based on how it was arrived at. That was not my point in the thread and it still isn't. That was not a bone I threw to Dude in order to pacify him. As for his behavior in that thread, that is yet another issue that again has nothing to do with my differences with Dude about how I see the real argument that you have now proclaimed as not important. I don't agree. Now, lost in this mess of personal crap is an actual debate on a subject worth exploring.
Sigh…
You know, it occurs to me as I am writing this that I may have been the most misunderstood person in the debate by all sides. Just a thought. I dunno…
|
You did correctly state my position at the beginning of all this. I had nothing more in terms of real evidence to support the conclusion I drew than my acquaintance with some Green Party members. There was more than one post by me acceding to the position I was basing my conclusion on limited evidence. I had no problem qualifying my statements as such. That didn't satisfy Dude then and still hasn't to this day. So how long am I to put up with Dude's personal attacks after acceding?
I did not speak of my gut reaction nor my experience with woo types over the years because there was no way to quantify or present that as actual evidence.
Now that I have supporting evidence, I am merely saying I had a lifetime of experience in addition to knowing a few Green Party members. While you cannot present that as evidence, once there is corroborating evidence I am comfortable saying my gut reaction to the Green Party was not one drawn without that lifetime of experiences.
I was also content to drop the issue. But when it resurfaced and included comments about the lack of skeptical focus on evidence by me, then it seemed appropriate to post the evidence I did find which supported my original 'gut' reaction. Gut reactions are of course, based one's past experiences.
It wasn't acceptable to Dude for me to say I had an opinion but admitted that opinion was not based on solid evidence. That is where it should have ended. Since Dude went on acting ridiculously all this time, and even now wouldn't let it drop, it became apparent to me I could either put up with this crap indefinitely, or just show him I was right.
He doesn't like that outcome either, but at least now I can tell him to |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/30/2007 00:45:31 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 00:59:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
be-loonatic-gal said:
| Do you have any evidence the Greens in England are different from the Greens in the USA? I thought not. Can't support your irrational attack on me so you run away. What a surprise. |
There really is no point in trying to speak with you. You are so entrenched in your absurd conclusion that you are willing to falsely conflate two seperate and distinct political parties to try and "prove" your point.
I don't need to provide evidence that the US and UK greens are different from one another, because THEY SELF EVIDENTLY ARE NOT THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY. |
They do indeed have similar a membership. One can see that from the same causes they both represent. Just compare their party platforms.
The problem is, there are no member surveys of US members' political philosophies. So we are left with the following previously cited evidence: the US Green Party Platform, a survey of the party members in England, Beskep's personal experiences with members in the US, and the context of Beskep's original comments, "the Green party has too much woo to be a viable 3rd party". Dude has presented one citation and made the claim, (I presume also based on his personal experience and nothing more), that Beskep's opinion was wrong.
So be it. I am of the opinion the Green Party is too full of woo to be a viable 3rd party. Dude is of the opinion I am wrong.
I declare this debate officially over. I agree to disagree.
Should you wish to continue this debate, Dude, then present some evidence worth debating.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/30/2007 01:03:14 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 01:11:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Hell, The Green Party of the United States isn't even the same party as The Greens/Green Party USA. And the former is only an "affiliate of" the European Green Party, of which the Green Party - UK is a member party.
But this is beside the point. If beskeptigal wishes to use the GPUK as an example of "Green Party woo-woo," then she is the one who has to provide the evidence that they're the same sort of people as in the Green Party discussed in the other thread as regards their woo-wooness. But rather than do that, she simply demands that someone else prove the opposite. As she's done a few other times in the last few months.
If you make a claim, beskeptigal - say, "the sky is blue" - then whether you've done so implicitly or explicitly, whether stated as opinion or as fact, if someone asks "do you have evidence that the sky is blue?" the correct response is never "do you have any evidence that the sky is not blue?" That's called shifting the burden of proof. And while it's a great rhetorical and political tool, its obvious bullying intent falls flat on these forums.
This isn't about "anal word definitions" or whether the Greens in the US (which ones?) are the same as the Greens in the UK. This is about you, beskeptigal, being irrational in your argumentation.
But you don't care.
|
Where do you see evidence the philosophy of either party, the USA Greens or the UK Greens differ? I see no evidence of the kind.
The anal retentative comments I made were about your post attacking my definition of opinion. The definition I gave was in the context of Dude's fixation with my original comments. You love those anal retentive replies. But all too often you miss the forest for the trees.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 01:38:40 [Permalink]
|
be-loonatic-gal said:
| I am of the opinion the Green Party is too full of woo to be a viable 3rd party |
Which bears ZERO resemblance to the nonsense you were vomiting into the other thread.
I'll accept this as an official retraction of your original assertion and an admission that you can't support that original assertion via evidence.
About freakin time.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 04:16:39 [Permalink]
|
What was your imaginary version of what I said Dude? You're telling us now this was all over an imagined version and/or interpretation of what I posted?
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/30/2007 04:17:25 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 04:33:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Where do you see evidence the philosophy of either party, the USA Greens or the UK Greens differ? I see no evidence of the kind. |
Thank you for proving my point. Your argument depends upon the premise that the "woo-wooness" of the parties are the same, yet when asked for evidence that that is true, you demand instead that someone else provide evidence of the opposite.| The anal retentative comments I made were about your post attacking my definition of opinion. The definition I gave was in the context of Dude's fixation with my original comments. You love those anal retentive replies. But all too often you miss the forest for the trees. |
And this will be the 4th time that I've told you that the definition of 'opinion' is irrelevant to the more substantive points I've been making. In fact, your continued harping upon my alleged anality also proves my point, and further reinforces the fact that as far as my posts go, you feel entitled to replace my meaning with whatever you like. And after you misrepresent me, you insult me and then demand an apology from me.
If there really were people who supported you in the old thread, the time came a few posts back for them to try to encourage you to stop your self-induced humiliation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 16:56:04 [Permalink]
|
| What was your imaginary version of what I said Dude? You're telling us now this was all over an imagined version and/or interpretation of what I posted? |
Its over what you actually posted, and your continual (you are STILL doing it) demand to be proven wrong when asked for evidence.
If your original assertion in the other thread had even a passing resemblance to: "I am of the opinion the Green Party is too full of woo to be a viable 3rd party." (which it doesn't) Then none of this arguing would have taken place.
Again, I accept your new statement as an admission that your original was based on a faulty induction, and therefore in error.
I'm glad to see that you have finally seen reason with regard to your original assertion.
Now if you could just admit the error you have made by continiously repeating the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, we might be able to move on from this.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 17:43:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
be-loonatic-gal said:
|
I'm a bit disappointed at this name-calling. It's so unnecessary.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 23:12:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Dude
be-loonatic-gal said:
|
I'm a bit disappointed at this name-calling. It's so unnecessary. |
If someone wan´t to make an ass of himself and wreck an argument where he actually have a point it can as we see in these threads be quite useful.
 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 02:11:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
....Your argument depends upon the premise that the "woo-wooness" of the parties are the same, yet when asked for evidence that that is true, you demand instead that someone else provide evidence of the opposite. |
Have you a short term memory problem here or are you simply unable to extrapolate?
Let me review, there is the Green Party Platform here in the US containing all of the same woo causes as the Green Party UK. There was an attack on water fluoridation on the Green Party website here in the US and in the UK. There was a member survey in the UK.
Where is there any evidence the party membership differs? Why isn't the fact the two parties have similar woo in their party platforms not evidence the parties are similar?
No, Dave, you in your desire to prove me wrong are simply asking for a higher standard of evidence than is necessary given the context of the discussion.
Originally posted by Dave W.
......And this will be the 4th time that I've told you that the definition of 'opinion' is irrelevant to the more substantive points I've been making. In fact, your continued harping upon my alleged anality also proves my point, and further reinforces the fact that as far as my posts go, you feel entitled to replace my meaning with whatever you like. And after you misrepresent me, you insult me and then demand an apology from me.
If there really were people who supported you in the old thread, the time came a few posts back for them to try to encourage you to stop your self-induced humiliation.
|
You keep making the same false point, "...if someone asks "do you have evidence that the sky is blue?" the correct response is never "do you have any evidence that the sky is not blue?" That's called shifting the burden of proof."
I presented evidence. You or whomever claim it isn't sufficient. At some point I can say if you want to challenge my evidence then provide some of yours too. That's the part you are leaving out of your little interpretation of events here.
I said I had an opinion. You and whomever claim I'm asking someone else to adopt my opinion. No I am not. I said if one cared to provide something else I would consider it. That is not the same as saying "prove me wrong" or declaring everyone else should adopt my conclusions.
And I'm not sure which people you are referring to? I'm not in some contest to have my supporters against someone else's supporters. This has never been about who is on some side. I'm not going to discuss this part of your post. I have my opinion of you, you have yours of me, end of discussion.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/31/2007 02:40:39 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 02:13:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
| What was your imaginary version of what I said Dude? You're telling us now this was all over an imagined version and/or interpretation of what I posted? |
Its over what you actually posted, and your continual (you are STILL doing it) demand to be proven wrong when asked for evidence.
If your original assertion in the other thread had even a passing resemblance to: "I am of the opinion the Green Party is too full of woo to be a viable 3rd party." (which it doesn't) Then none of this arguing would have taken place.
Again, I accept your new statement as an admission that your original was based on a faulty induction, and therefore in error.
I'm glad to see that you have finally seen reason with regard to your original assertion.
Now if you could just admit the error you have made by continiously repeating the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, we might be able to move on from this.
|
No one ever demanded you prove anything. That is entirely in your imagination. And my statement where you replied I had changed what I said was consistent with what I said weeks ago.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Bringing personal arguments home
Topic Locked
