|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 03:34:18 [Permalink]
|
What is with this position that if someone says they have concluded something it means they are demanding someone prove them wrong? That has to be one of the most twisted things to come out of this whole episode. Are some of you actually trying to make the case that every time someone voices an opinion they not only must prove it, but if the evidence is deemed insufficient, then again the person who merely posted their opinion is somehow guilty of demanding someone prove them wrong?
That is insane! That would mean every time two people came to a different conclusion, or accepted more or less evidence as a threshold to form an opinion then they would supposedly be demanding the other person prove them wrong.
I don't normally take the, 'this is unfair' position, but in this case I find it hard to believe there isn't some singling out treatment of my posts on the quantity of woo in the Green Party that won't be found with equivalent statements of opinion made by others on other topics. That's not to say the reason is me or the topic, because it appears to depend on who's objecting. But clearly this affair is not the norm here. Not when you look at the whole picture.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/31/2007 03:36:45 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 05/31/2007 : 10:33:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I have my opinion of you, you have yours of me, end of discussion. |
I know you said you wouldn't discuss this, so I guess I'll have the last word.
It is because of your refusal to entertain the idea that my opinion of you might be correct that I attempted to enlist the help of someone whose opinion you might care about. You've dug yourself into a deep, deep hole, and your failure to acknowledge it is simply making the hole deeper still. It's easy to see that you are feeling persecuted and alone right now, but the majority of the problems you are encountering are of your own creation.
For example, you now claim that I have a desire to prove you wrong. About what, I have no idea, since at this moment I really couldn't care less about whether or not the Greens are infused with nutters. You've simply fabricated this "desire" for me because (it seems) you don't want to acknowledge the real issues at hand here.
Because what I do care about is your continued and repeated self-humiliation. It's really no skin off my nose if you wish to keep insisting that I was angry because you wouldn't debate me, or that I was anally fixated upon the definition of "opinion." Those things are so completely false that a single demonstration from me that there are, indeed, untrue should have sufficed for anyone. That you kept repeating those falsehoods as if I never replied to your accusations, however, simply made you look like a fool.
I don't like it when anyone here keeps making an embarrassment of themselves. Especially not people I've grown to respect. And so, because you refuse to listen to me, and you were beginning to do the same sorts of foolish things to Kil, it seemed like it was time to appeal to anyone else to whom you might listen to help out, and try to show you that it's not about you being right or wrong, it's all about you humiliating yourself.
But you've made it clear that you don't care about that. Maybe everyone else who once cared now doesn't care, either, simply because you don't. Perhaps they think that you've gotten yourself so backed into a corner that any attempts to help out will be seen by you as unfair, persecuting criticisms and you'll just end up insulting and villifying them, as well. Maybe they just saw where this thread was going back on page two, threw up their hands in disgust, and haven't been back. I don't know.
I do know that it's a good thing you're not completely ignoring me, because even if you continue to choose to change the meaning of my words to whatever you want, no solution to your problems was ever possible with you being utterly ignorant of them. |
- 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 - 05/31/2007 : 16:15:40 [Permalink]
|
You didn't address the issue, Dave W. Taking just your recent position, I provided evidence so I'm not asking anyone to prove anything. If the evidence isn't convincing, you or Dude can remain unconvinced. Your position seems to be if I am convinced by the evidence I can't post that opinion unless I meet your personal standard of evidence.
Seems like the same theme as in the Net Neutrality thread. You have expectations of people, they don't meet those expectations, you go off on a rant about how their argument isn't satisfactory to you but you miss the obvious, no one has an obligation to present you with convincing evidence. You can claim that is then automatically a demand to be proven wrong. That seems to be your view. But not everyone wants to, cares to, needs to, or is willing to present more and more evidence simply because it doesn't meet someone else's standard.
My personal observations were enough for me. Turned out the evidence backed that personal observation up. Still not good enough for you or Dude? Did it ever dawn on you to just say, "I'm not convinced and here's why", instead of, "You are demanding to be proved wrong"?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 18:00:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Did it ever dawn on you to just say, "I'm not convinced and here's why", instead of, "You are demanding to be proved wrong"? |
Did it ever dawn on you that after you've rejected other peoples' suggestions about the wording in your posts, you should avoid doing the same thing to them?
Did it ever dawn on you that maybe your continued policy of showing me how much you don't care about what I think with every post you write may rub off on me and others, in which case your pleas for sympathy and justice may fall on deaf ears due to the standard you set all on your own?
Did it ever dawn on you that when you asked me, "Where do you see evidence the philosophy of either party, the USA Greens or the UK Greens differ?" it might be seen as a demand to prove you wrong?
My position on that subject was not that the parties were different, it was only that before my previous post on that subject, I hadn't seen you present evidence that they were the same. But this is all irrelevant to the points I was making. And you've continued your policy of self-abuse by claiming that I hadn't addressed your issue when, in fact, I had explained to you that I don't care whether you're right or wrong. The truthfulness of your conclusions is about as far from what I consider "the issue" as one can get.
You're also continuing to misrepresent my intentions in the Net Neutrality thread and its aftermath. But I know you don't care, and I know you won't discuss any of this, except perhaps the irrelevant stuff. Hell, it's not that you won't discuss it, it's that you won't even acknowlege that I wrote any of it. |
- 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 - 05/31/2007 : 20:21:05 [Permalink]
|
I'm only representing how your posts come across, Dave. If you feel they were misrepresented, all you have to do is explain what was misrepresented. You've repeatedly answered my posts with so much sarcasm I can't tell what you're complaining about half the time.
I think if you go back through this particular exchange from the start in the polls forum you'll find I "reworded" my statements repeatedly in an effort to correct any mis-statements or mis-interpretations.
I plea for no one's sympathy. The only issue of taking sides here is when you attack my posts with a pre-existing bias toward them. Otherwise everyone is obviously welcome to draw their own conclusions.
You said:| 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. |
That statement ignores all the other evidence I had posted, (party platforms etc.) it ignores the context of my initial post, (Green Party too full of woos to become a viable 3rd party), and it ignores the repeated posts I made qualifying my initial statements as opinion, not declarations of fact. I said, "this is my opinion, should you offer alternative evidence I will consider it" which in no way demands a reply of any kind. That last point was ignored by you and Dude in the initial thread as you both continued to harp I was demanding to be proved wrong.
Now I have presented some evidence. You maintain, not only was one cherry picked citation on it's own, not enough evidence, but you attack me for again demanding I be proved wrong. That position not only ignores the evidence in its entirety but it also assumes the starting place of this discussion was, "the majority in the Green Party are not Woos".
There is no presumption in this situation that Beskep is in the defensive position. Dude is making the exact same assertion, "The Party isn't full of woos, prove me wrong". While you might be able to argue, (if you ignore the fact I never asked to be proved wrong when this started) that in the beginning, "gee, I spoke first, therefore I must 'prove' my opinion." 
Well Dude made this statement:Here are 10 major values of the US Green Party:
quote:http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml
Just because there is a statement most of us find silly in their platform in no way makes "a lot of them idiots". |
There is no claim I made that I must support. That is your biased version of events. Instead there are two people with two different opinions both initially based on personal observations.
I am now asking Dude to support his position. You in your biased version of events have ignored the fact this is a debate that began on even ground. Nowhere did I become the sole obligatory provider of evidence. It isn't like I'm arguing the Sun has a solid surface or evolution isn't a valid theory. This is about two people's equally valid opinions based initially on equally minimal personal observations.
Now there is more evidence for one of those opinions than the other. In the absence of any other evidence, one version has gained more weight. Does that evidence prove the initial opinion? No. Is only one person here required to provide evidence? Neither party is required. It's optional! Can I say I believe the evidence supports my initial observations? Yes. Saying that does not "demand" opposing evidence.
But then you come to the reply, "That isn't good enough evidence." And my reply (paraphrased), "fine but if you want me to look for any more then you have to make a good faith effort to show there is actually a reason to think more evidence is required". Considering the opposite position is no more than someone else's opinion, and now appears to be wrong, it's not set in stone somewhere that Dave W or Dude get to determine who has to prove what to whom.
You have arbitrarily decided.
Considering the Party Platform and the additional citations presented, there is now more reason to consider my observations were indeed correct. Yet almost nothing has been presented supporting any other view. I don't demand Dude prove me wrong. But before I need add more evidence to support my conclusion, he's going to have to support his claim. And so far he's repeatedly demanded I prove him wrong as have you.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 09:52:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I'm only representing how your posts come across, Dave. |
Explain to me how my stating that the definition of 'opinion' is irrelevant to my points comes across as me being anally retentive about the definition of 'opinion'. That's just one example among many where your representation of my posts is the polar opposite of my intended meaning.| If you feel they were misrepresented, all you have to do is explain what was misrepresented. |
I have done so many times, and it has had no effect whatsoever upon you, beskeptigal. You are telling me to continue doing what I already know does not work with you. And you're telling me as if it's such a simple solution it should be obvious. It was obvious, and now it's obvious that when I tell you how you're misrepresenting my posts, you don't care enough to stop doing so. Of course, you've already said you don't care at all, so I'm not surprised. I'm just stupefied that you think "I don't care what you think, but just tell me if I get your meaning wrong" is a rational position to maintain.| You've repeatedly answered my posts with so much sarcasm I can't tell what you're complaining about half the time. |
I don't believe I've used sarcasm at all in this thread. And I've been careful to ensure that my meaning has been straightforward. It is you who have said you'll read whatever meaning you like into my posts, "regardless" (your word) of my intended meaning, so any confusion on your part must be because you wish to be confused. There is absolutely nothing I can do to change that.| I think if you go back through this particular exchange from the start in the polls forum you'll find I "reworded" my statements repeatedly in an effort to correct any mis-statements or mis-interpretations. |
Irrelevant to my point. You rejected with great hostility my suggested rewording of one of your posts prior to the poll. Thus you waived your entitlement to suggest rewordings for my posts.| The only issue of taking sides here is when you attack my posts with a pre-existing bias toward them. |
Pot, kettle, black. Why should I give a damn about any bias I might have towards your posts when you obviously don't give a damn about your biases regarding my posts?
A bias so strong, I'll remind you, that you've told me that the meaning I attempt to put in my posts doesn't matter, you'll choose your own meaning for my arguments. A bias so strong you see sarcasm in everything I write, whether I use italics or not. A bias so strong that you're still demanding an apology for something I never did. A bias so strong that you decided that I had nothing at all worth reading for some weeks. The idea that you would lecture me on biases is ludicrous! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 10:10:51 [Permalink]
|
[Smacks everybody]
Get ahold of youself people, besides everyone knows the green M&Ms are the best. If you were my soldiers I'd have to do a decimation. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 12:55:44 [Permalink]
|
I see you ignored the main issue, Dave W., that is your insistence I have some burden of proof in Dude v BeSkep that Dude making the opposite anecdotal observation doesn't equally have.
There is no point in going on with the rest of your issues if you can't even deal with the main one.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 15:20:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I see you ignored the main issue, Dave W., that is your insistence I have some burden of proof in Dude v BeSkep that Dude making the opposite anecdotal observation doesn't equally have. |
That's never been the main issue I've been interested in. Part of that point is simply a small bit of data in a constellation of problems I have with you. But you said you don't care.
Even though you pretended to not ignore my posts, you have continued to ignore my posts. You can't even acknowledge that I wrote anything in my last post. It may as well have been blank. That is why it is pointless to continue.
But, let's see how it goes. I replied to your demand that I provide evidence that the UK Greens are different from the US Greens before I saw your presentation of evidence that the UK Greens are different from the US Greens, which came afterwards chronologically. For my part in those miscommunications, I apologize.
For the rest of what you see as the main issue, you are partially correct and partially not. Yes, when two people's opinions about an issue conflict, both have an identical burden of proof. But that's not how the nastiness started in the "Party, party, party" thread, nor was that the failure between us in the Net Neutrality thread. |
- 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 - 06/01/2007 : 22:43:37 [Permalink]
|
I would have replied to this:If you hadn't followed it with this:Originally posted by Dave W.
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. |
But to save you the time of rewording that now that you recognize Dude was equally asking to be proved wrong, here's what I would have said.
There is nothing in your links that show party differences except name and location. All the web sites have similar themes. Every one of those parties are in what is called the "Global Federation of Greens" They hold the same philosophies as described on the websites in English, and differ only in local political issues. That's what you would expect with a party that puts "grassroots" organizing as a priority.
The more you look at the individual groups, the more alike they look. There are two (and maybe more) US affiliates but they had one national convention and one national party platform. The other US political parties are similar, there are state and district divisions. So you've shown the parties are distinct in organization, but there is no indication philosophies, beliefs and personalities are going to differ between the UK Greens and the US Greens.
And yes this was where the nastiness in the Party thread started. I went back and looked at some of your posts I hadn't read earlier when I copied Dude's quote. You were both posting the same stuff, that I was "demanding to be proved wrong" by asking Dude to support his opinion.
And at the time, I was inviting additional evidence, not claiming mine was solid. Even now I am not claiming the evidence is solid but considering some of the causes the Greens support, it's darn hard to argue there isn't at least some woo in the mainstream of the party. That only leaves how much woo in dispute. And for that there is one study on the table of a closely affiliated group.
So I repeat my original opinion, in context, "from what I have observed, (now coupled with some additional evidence), the Green Party is too full of woo to be a viable third party".
The original issue was Dude having a cow over my opinion.
As far as the neutrality thread, it was a similar thing. You demanded I debate something with you after posting my opinion. I didn't feel like it and that made you angry. So from there you went off saying my behavior disappointed you like I was some child being scorned by a parent. I don't cater to that kind of manipulative talk. What I don't care about, is "disappointing you".
You find all sorts of ways to rationalize what the issues are like your page long version of logic errors I supposedly committed that weren't worth reading. The simple matter was I wasn't interested, not that I demanded to be proved wrong or whatever you came up with. There is no logic error in "not interested".
And now since the party thread you've latched on to the idea I made some assertion and demanded it be proved wrong. When the truth was quite different from that.
Underneath it all you have this other issue, Beskep didn't meet your expectation because she didn't care to debate an issue. I'd even wager the fact you saw a twinge of that when you latched on to this issue of my supposedly demanding Dude prove me wrong. It likely contributed to your selective attention to my supposed error while ignoring the fact Dude had an equal 'opinion' to support.
What it boils down to and apparently you egged Dude on with the same attitude is your expectations. If I disagree with someone, or feel they haven't met the threshold for convincing evidence, I say so. I don't go off on a rant that they must meet my expectation. Even if it weren't one opinion vs another in BeSkep V Dude, I have the option of saying I don't care to support my assertion and leave it at that. Dude didn't leave it at that and I see now from reading some of your posts I had skipped, that you were actually telling him he was right.
When someone won't drop an issue, there is nothing wrong with saying OK, then you show me I'm wrong. I understand your logic rule, I just don't believe you are in charge of rule making. It's fine to tell some woo poster they need to provide some evidence if they want a discussion. It's quite another to demand evidence from anyone who posts an opinion or even a conclusion you or someone else doesn't like. I can post what I want within the board rules. If someone is insulted or doesn't like it, they can say whatever they want. Beyond that, there is no "rule" one cannot say, I have no reason to change my mind, present a reason and I'll consider it.
I don't expect anything from you if I don't buy what you are saying. And I certainly don't feel obligated to meet anyone else's expectations but my own on what I post in a forum.
That, I believe, is the real essence of our disagreement.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 06/01/2007 23:00:11 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 23:09:46 [Permalink]
|
I see you ignored the main issue, Dave W., that is your insistence I have some burden of proof in Dude v BeSkep that Dude making the opposite anecdotal observation doesn't equally have.
|
You have well and truly gone off the deep end.
You made an assertion, I wanted evidence. That in no possible way equates to me taking a position opposite yours!
Just what in the hell are you smoking anyway?
|
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 |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 06/01/2007 23:10:35 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 23:32:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
As far as the neutrality thread, it was a similar thing. You demanded I debate something with you after posting my opinion. I didn't feel like it and that made you angry. |
Same old crap. You, beskeptigal, are as unwilling to give up a total fiction as a Fundamentalist, and you're so vindictive and spiteful that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that I apologized to you. You go on and on and on about irrelevancies (I'd already conceded the Greens argument, yet you obviously felt another few hundred words were in order), and you refuse to address the stuff that now matters, like your continued insults. I know you don't care about disappointing me, but I can't imagine you're happy with making such a total ass of yourself. |
- 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 - 06/01/2007 : 23:34:36 [Permalink]
|
Dude, guess you missed the part where you made an assertion and I don't care if you support it, and the part where I requested the invisible board rules be made visible that say I owe you anything.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 06/01/2007 23:35:10 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 23:40:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by beskeptigal
As far as the neutrality thread, it was a similar thing. You demanded I debate something with you after posting my opinion. I didn't feel like it and that made you angry. |
Same old crap. You, beskeptigal, are as unwilling to give up a total fiction as a Fundamentalist, and you're so vindictive and spiteful that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that I apologized to you. You go on and on and on about irrelevancies (I'd already conceded the Greens argument, yet you obviously felt another few hundred words were in order), and you refuse to address the stuff that now matters, like your continued insults. I know you don't care about disappointing me, but I can't imagine you're happy with making such a total ass of yourself.
|
If you conceded the argument you obscured it in your post. I only replied to that post on the Greens because you said I hadn't.
I don't understand your Fundie comment, maybe you do, but I don't.
I haven't read any apology from you, perhaps you might tell me where to look.
And I haven't refused to address anything, I addressed what I think the issue is. Clearly you don't understand why your expectations are an issue.
And I think my post was just peachy. Maybe you should re-read it.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 00:08:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
If you conceded the argument you obscured it in your post. I only replied to that post on the Greens because you said I hadn't. |
I never said anything to you about you not replying to that post on the Greens.| I don't understand your Fundie comment, maybe you do, but I don't. |
Your continued insistence that I wanted a debate from you on Net Neutrality is all in your head. It has been since you made it up. Yet you refuse to drop it, and have even asked that I apologize for it.| I haven't read any apology from you, perhaps you might tell me where to look. |
It was just two posts ago.| And I haven't refused to address anything, I addressed what I think the issue is. |
And you don't care what I think the issue is.| Clearly you don't understand why your expectations are an issue. |
Clearly the expectation that you'd discuss these things in good faith was far too high.| And I think my post was just peachy. Maybe you should re-read it. |
Ah, you now want me to read your insults all over again. How many times? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Bringing personal arguments home
Topic Locked
