Journal pudge's Journal: squiggleslash is a fallacy machine 125
Silly little thing squiggleslash accuses me of "expressing [my] sense of terror that someone is going to take [my] guns away." And then he proceeds to show how that fear of mine is unfounded. The problem is, of course, I have no such fear and never expressed it, so most of his post is a straw man.
Not that squiggleslash cares about truth: he accuses me of being an apologist for the Bush regime despite criticizing Bush's rhetoric on tax cuts; disagreeing with the prewar claim that Iraq had WMD; saying that the warrantless wiretapping was likely illegal if not unconstitutional; saying that the MCA of 2006 probably didn't sufficiently protect the right to habeas corpus; and so on. Note that my views on those two latter items are because of my strong record on supporting civil liberties, which is the reason why I was a registered Libertarian for awhile in the 90s. squiggleslash is one of the unfortunately common breed of yokel who presumes that someone who is a Republican who defends the war in Iraq and is pro-life therefore agrees with Bush and Jerry Falwell on everything.
What I did express was my dislike of the fact that Obama wants to ban the manufacture and sale of "assault weapons," and that the latest forms of the AWB go even further than the original.
squggleslash rightly points out that its passage is unlikely, despite the fact that I cited, that Obama wants it to pass. But so what? Should I be unconcerned because it is unlikely? The President wants it done. That is reason enough to raise my voice against it.
And here's the thing: if people like me do NOT raise their voice against it when the President says he wants it, then it necessarily makes it MORE likely to pass. Obviously. squiggleslash tacitly admits that, by saying the only reason it won't pass is that it is bad politics because so many people are against it. The best way to make sure it doesn't pass, therefore, is to remind people that we are against it.
The left does this sort of thing all the time, and I never criticize it, unless they invent something that is completely untrue, like "the Republicans want to reinstate the draft" or "Republicans want to take away the right of blacks to vote," such as I have heard over the pas few years. If I had said, "Obama is going to pass this now that he is President," or "Obama wants to take away my guns," he might have a point. But I never said that, nor implied it. All I stated was fact: he said he wants to bring back the AWB.
Also, to round out his errors, I was not only talking about the AWB, but all of his anti-gun policies, some of which MAY happen, such as his desire to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and eliminate private gun sales.
Finally, he makes another error by saying that in re civil liberties, I "only" care about guns, simply because it's the one example I used. Apparently he doesn't understand the concept of examples, but no, my list is regarding significantly more than gun rights. But even if gun rights were all I was working on, so what? There are people and groups who spend all their time on free speech rights, on religious freedom, on due process. What's wrong with focusing on guns? Even if I did that, it doesn't seem to be a valid point of criticism.
I've opened up this post to all logged-in users, because I can't post on his journal and he can't post in mine, and I think it might be fun to let squiggleslash respond. If you have a legitimate argument, present it. If you can. I have my doubts.
"If you can" (Score:2)
On a more serious note:
Not that squiggleslash cares about truth: he accuses me of being an apologist for the Bush regime despite criticizing Bush's rhetoric on tax cuts; disagreeing with the prewar claim that Iraq had WMD; saying that the warrantless wiretapping was likely illegal if not unconstitutional; saying that the MCA of 2006 probably didn't sufficiently protect the right to habeas corpus; and so on.
Get some link-fu going on there.
Toodles!
Re: (Score:2)
Get some link-fu going on there.
On tax cuts, here [slashdot.org] is one, and somewhere there's more than one post where I criticized Bush for reusing his "cut for all income tax payers" in his second tax cut, even though it didn't cut taxes for people already in the 10 percent bracket with no dependents and no dividend income. I can't find it offhand right now, but I've said it many times. (Perhaps I've said it more often in posts by other people, which is why I can't quickly find it. Regardless, it was a common refrain of mine at the end of Bush's f
Bad Idea (Score:2)
Frankly I think Democrats would be wise to run screaming away from any new Federal gun legislation. We've only painfully won back some of the voters we lost in 1994 many of them because they saw the party as "anti-gun". With politicians like Sen. Tester or Sen. Webb we've only partially shook that image. There would be no better way to get it back than to pass a new AWB or a mandatory trigger lock requirement.
At this point I would only support new Federal firearms legislation if it meets one of the followin
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly I think Democrats would be wise to run screaming away from any new Federal gun legislation.
Agreed.
At this point I would only support new Federal firearms legislation if it meets one of the following conditions:
1. It is needed to allow states to pass their own laws.
2. It will help law enforcement solve gun crime.
3. It will provably reduce deaths due to firearms.
4. It will make it harder for those who shouldn't have firearms to get them without unduly burdening lawful firearm owners.
1. could be good, depending on what kind of laws. 2. and 3. are likely not possible at this point without running afoul of 4. (That's not to say that gun laws could never do those things, but we already have plenty of laws in place, and I doubt we could do better at this point.)
There are many other things that are a better use of political capital. Gun legislation is just picking political fights for no good effect and provides a rallying point for opposition. Not to mention that it will lose loose quite a few of the new friends the Democrats have gained in recent years.
Yes, but I'd like to point out that "no good effect" is the real point here. They are trying to take away our rights for no good reason. It's bad enough when our rights are taken away for GOOD reason, but for NO good reaso
Re: (Score:2)
1. could be good, depending on what kind of laws. 2. and 3. are likely not possible at this point without running afoul of 4. (That's not to say that gun laws could never do those things, but we already have plenty of laws in place, and I doubt we could do better at this point.)
Well in the case of the states I was thinking of things where there might need to be enabling Federal legislation in order for states to pass additional restrictions. But that could go a few other ways as well too. Though in any case the laws would need to pass Constitutional muster.
For 2 I was thinking things like having harder to remove serial numbers, or serial numbers on more parts of a firearm.
But for the most part my #2-4 are going to fail the undue burden and "does this legislation really need to be
Re: (Score:2)
Well in the case of the states I was thinking of things where there might need to be enabling Federal legislation in order for states to pass additional restrictions.
Well right, it depends on what those restrictions might be. Obama, for example, favors allowing large cities to ban handguns. Obviously that's not constitutional, and the Supreme Court has agreed, but nevertheless, federal legislation that would make it easier for cities to get away with restrictions like this would be terrible.
But for the most part lets just enforce the existing laws, and spend the remaining effort on crime prevention/reduction strategies we know work.
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but I'd like to point out that "no good effect" is the real point here. They are trying to take away our rights for no good reason. It's bad enough when our rights are taken away for GOOD reason, but for NO good reason ... just stupid.
Just in case I wasn't clear, I absolutely believe passing any new Federal firearms restrictions will absolutely blow up in the Democrats faces.
There are other reasons I believe doing so is stupid, but this is one that has some hope of convincing people without strong pro-2nd Amendment views.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, the amendment had nothing significant to do with DC "Voting Rights" and some people may have opposed it for that reason. Had it been in its own bill, she MIGHT have voted for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last I saw the House killed the DC Voting Rights Act.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The other option to handing the District back to Maryland would be to admit DC as a State.
Either way would have some problems related to tax base and a crapload of Federal legislation that addresses DC specifically, including the constitutional amendment giving DC 3 electoral votes.
However those issues could be worked out, say by keeping a rump Federal district with the Capitol Complex, mall, White House and surrounding Federal buildings. Similarly the tax issue could be solved with some form of subsidy, si
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. I suspect some of the Democrats in Congress who tend more to the pro-Second Amendment side might not only vote against any further Federal firearms restrictions, but point out to some of their fellow members what political poison it is for the party to be seen as gun grabbers.
As for Sen. Gillibrand, I have no real idea. New York politics is weird from where I sit. I'd likely vote for her in 2010, but I don't really like any of her likely primary opponents and in general elections I rarely vote f
Re: (Score:2)
Federal firearm legislation I'd like to see:
Tax deductions for the purchase of firearms suitable for use by members of the unorganized militia, along with ammo and training courses.
Funding for high school courses in firearms safety and marksmanship, and civics courses focused on gun ownership and the legal use of deadly force.
Reopening the civilian machine gun registry.
Re: (Score:1)
Tax deductions for the purchase of firearms suitable for use by members of the unorganized militia, along with ammo and training courses.
I can see not taxing guns, ammo, and training course supplies, but those taxes are at the state level. Giving a deduction at the federal level doesn't really make sense to me.
Funding for high school courses in firearms safety and marksmanship, and civics courses focused on gun ownership and the legal use of deadly force.
Again, the federal government should have nothing to
Re: (Score:1)
Funding for high school courses in firearms safety and marksmanship, and civics courses focused on gun ownership and the legal use of deadly force.
Again, the federal government should have nothing to do with education. At best the federal government should stay out of it.
In fact, when I was in high school, Pennsylvania offered free optional, after-school courses on hunting safety (and firearms safety as encompassed by that rubric) to high school students over age 11ish every year. This is probably one of t
Re: (Score:1)
Was this federally, state, or locally paid for? Since we were talking of the federal level of government (president) I think a distinction should be made. I do not want the federal government to put a penny towards education, even programs I might personally be interested in. The states or local school boards, I have less issue with, since each state has its own constitution, which may or may not be as limiting as the US Constitution.
Of the two high schools (one in Maine and Michigan) I went to while gro
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, except that "Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence ... of the United States", you could easily argue that assisting with training and equipping the people is part of governments responsibility as a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State.
See Civilian Marksmanship Program [wikipedia.org] for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, except that "Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence ... of the United States", you could easily argue that assisting with training and equipping the people is part of governments responsibility as a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State.
See Civilian Marksmanship Program [wikipedia.org] for instance.
The CMP is a nice way to get your hands on a M1 Garand and some 30-06 ammo.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see not taxing guns, ammo, and training course supplies, but those taxes are at the state level. Giving a deduction at the federal level doesn't really make sense to me.
I guess you've never heard of the firearms and ammunition excise tax?
http://www.ttb.gov/firearms/index.shtml [ttb.gov]
Also, as Iamthefallen pointed out, it's not hard to argue that it is within the fed's responsibility and power to see to the effectiveness of the unorganized militia [wikipedia.org].
Again, the federal government should have nothing to do with education. At best the federal government should stay out of it.
Granted as a new gun owner I'd personally love to get some classes on firearm safety and training. But I am unwilling to make others pay for that training for me.
I actually agree. In reality though, getting the feds out of education is unlikely to happen. At second best, it would be nice to have the schools not be purely socialist indoctrination centers and provide some more in the way of useful s
Re: (Score:1)
I guess you've never heard of the firearms and ammunition excise tax?
http://www.ttb.gov/firearms/index.shtml [ttb.gov] [ttb.gov]
No, I had not heard of it. :-/ This makes me sad. I picked up 50 rounds of 9mm this weekend and didn't even notice the tax on the bill. I'll have to pay more attention next time.
Also, when I bought my gun off of gunbroker I did not see anything mentioning the tax.
Either way, I suppose it is a moot point for a tax deduction for purchasing a gun if there is a tax specifically on them.
Also,
BDS Rebound (Score:2)
Have to cut the Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers some slack. I know the ones in my domain went strangely silent in the past few weeks as they transitioned from being incessant complainers to incessant gloaters. They are looking for the argument clinic and if you have ever identified as being conservative, libertarian, Republican, right-wing, then YOU'RE IT!
I actually don't know any people of my political leanings that were ardent Bush supporters, but that doesn't matter, the hunt is on for "enemies" th
Ahh, Squiggy (Score:2)
One of my favorite trolls. If I went looking for his real address, I wouldn't be shocked if it was under a bridge.
Why only this entry? (Score:2)
I am not aware of a slashdot user with a longer foes list than yours. Is there a way to ever be removed from it?
Re: (Score:2)
Why deny the ability to reply from opposing viewpoint in matters that you feel are important enough to warrant a journal entry?
I never have Foe'd someone for having an opposing viewpoint, and I never would. So that's irrelevant.
Now, please stick to the topic at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Why deny the ability to reply from opposing viewpoint in matters that you feel are important enough to warrant a journal entry?
I never have Foe'd someone for having an opposing viewpoint
You can't prove your claim any more so than I can prove mine.
However, in your entry you have said
I can't post on his journal and he can't post in mine
Which does concern foes lists.
Therefore my question remains -
Is it possible for someone to be removed from your foes list?
Re: (Score:2)
You can't prove your claim any more so than I can prove mine.
I don't have to prove it. Logically, this is YOUR burden of proof, not mine. I have never foed anyone for having an opposing viewpoint, period, end of story. If you would like to claim otherwise, find a single example.
Re: (Score:2)
find a single example
In one journal entry you added two people to your foes list [slashdot.org]
and never answered the question that I asked you there. For that matter you chose to close by insulting me rather than answering my question. [slashdot.org] And both users that you foed in that conversation were questioning your viewpoint from a standpoint that did not support your conclusions. Hence you foed two people of opposing viewpoints so that you wouldn't have to see what they had to say.
And choosing insults rather than answering questions, that se
Re: (Score:2)
you foed two people of opposing viewpoints ...
False, of course. As the discussion clearly demonstrates, I Foed you for lying, and the other person because I believed he was someone who had already been Foe'd, using another account. Please don't lie further. I know it's hard for you, but try.
Re: (Score:2)
Foed you for lying
That is a claim you never backed up. I asked you repeatedly to demonstrate the lie and you refused.
You seem to have something against answering questions, so I'll repeat yet again the question I asked you here.
Is it possible to get off your foes list?
Re: (Score:2)
That is a claim you never backed up.
Yes, I did.
Re: (Score:2)
Foed you for lying
That is a claim you never backed up
Yes, I did
This sounds familiar. I am asking you to support your claim, and you keep claiming to have done so.
Please, Pudge. Just for a moment, get off your high horse, and back up your words. You claim that I was lying, but you can't bother to show where the lie occurred. When you declared me a foe, even then you couldn't bother to demonstrate the lie that so angered you.
And while you're backing up your words (or not), please answer the question that I have asked multiple times now in this thread:
Is it pos
Re: (Score:2)
I am asking you to support your claim, and you keep claiming to have done so.
Because I did. You even linked to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I did. You even linked to it.
Except you did not. There were no lies in the post that I linked to, only your continued allegations of them occurring, with no evidence provided by you to back up said allegations.
And I see you are still avoiding the question I have asked you many times in this journal discussion. To be verbose:
Is it possible for anyone to ever be removed from your foes list?
I don't expect that you would ever for the slightest fraction of time even consider removing me from your list. It is clear that you believe
Re: (Score:2)
There were no lies in the post that I linked to
"You have only stated that you don't see Ayers as rehabilitated." -- lie by you
"You have attacked [Ayers] on more than one occasion" -- lie by you
"you started this journal entry by stating that you don't feel he is rehabilitated" -- lie by you
"you disagree with people who claim Ayers to be rehabilitated" -- lie by you
"There were no lies in the post that I linked to" -- lie by you
Re: (Score:2)
"You have only stated that you don't see Ayers as rehabilitated." -- lie by you
You criticized the idea that he might be rehabilitated. You refused to answer the question as to whether you consider him to be rehabilitated, or whether or not he ever could be.
Hence it is not a lie. It is only a lie if you actually believe he is rehabilitated. Being as you described him as a
terrorist
There is no reason to believe that you see him to be rehabilitated. You are only leading into yet another question that you refuse to answer.
"You have attacked [Ayers] on more than one occasion" -- lie by you
Well, that was stated in a journal entry that itself was an attack
Re: (Score:2)
I am only going to read as far as you lie. Then I am not going to read further.
You criticized the idea that he might be rehabilitated.
You're a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
You criticized the idea that he might be rehabilitated.
You're a liar.
Let's take a look at this again, shall we? The line in your journal entry [slashdot.org] read as follows:
How completely out of touch do you have to be, to assume that just because a terrorist is a professor in Chicago, that he has been rehabilitated?
Which sure as hell doesn't support the idea of him being rehabilitated (for whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, anyways). And being as your claim of
just because a terrorist is a professor
doesn't hold water, either - both because
-and-
So in t
Re: (Score:2)
Which sure as hell doesn't support the idea of him being rehabilitated
Nor is it against the idea of him being NOT rehabilitated. It is only against the idea of ASSUMING he is rehabilitated.
Re: (Score:2)
Which sure as hell doesn't support the idea of him being rehabilitated
Nor is it against the idea of him being NOT rehabilitated
Except that you called him a terrorist in the present sense. You could have called him an ex-terrorist or a former terrorist if you supported him being rehabilitated. Instead you chose to use the present sense in describing how you feel about Mr. Ayers.
Hence your word choice opposed the idea of him being rehabilitated (from a crime which he never received a trial for).
Being as you claim to have a degree in journalism, I would expect you would choose your words more carefully if you are trying not to
Re: (Score:2)
Except that you called him a terrorist in the present sense.
I don't believe anyone can ever be an ex-terrorist. If you're a murderer you don't become an ex-murderer. You could be a rehabilitated murderer, but you will always be a murderer, because you murdered people. Ayers will always be a terrorist regardless of whether he is rehabilitated.
You could have called him an ex-terrorist or a former terrorist if you supported him being rehabilitated.
No, I could not have, because as noted above, I don't think anyone can be an ex-terrorist or former terrorist.
And why would I, or anyone, "support him being rehabilitated," as there is no evidence presented that he has been r
Re: (Score:2)
Instead you chose to use the present sense in describing how you feel about Mr. Ayers.
False. I have no feelings about him.
Except that you just said
there is no evidence presented that he has been rehabilitated
Of course you still are unwilling to define terms under which you would agree that he has been rehabilitated.
Hence you are stating you do not feel him to be rehabilitated. You can claim that your feelings are supported by "evidence", though when you are unwilling to define terms for this "evidence", that claim holds no water. If Bill Ayers won the Nobel Peace Prize you would likely just bash the Nobel Foundation as an evil liberal scam and you would not consider that as "evid
Re: (Score:2)
False. I have no feelings about him.
Except that you just said
there is no evidence presented that he has been rehabilitated
Which is a thought, not a feeling. Do you not know the difference?
Of course you still are unwilling to define terms under which you would agree that he has been rehabilitated.
It's irrelevant to my point. All I said, all that's relevant, is that however you come to the conclusion that he has been rehabilitated, that it is not as Obama did, based purely on circumstantial evidence and assumption. It has to be based on actual words and deeds -- both -- from the man himself. What precisely those words or deeds should be are, again, irrelevant to my point.
Hence you are stating you do not feel him to be rehabilitated.
So no, you do not know the difference between thoughts and fe
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a thought, not a feeling. Do you not know the difference?
In your case, there is no functional difference. You have put no thought into your statement. You are going from what you hear from your conservative friends, what you feel to be correct. Whether we say you think of him as a terrorist or you feel that he is a terrorist, it makes no difference. They are your thoughts, which are not backed up by anything in the present day.
Of course you still are unwilling to define terms under which you would agree that he has been rehabilitated.
It's irrelevant to my point.
No, it is entirely relevant to your point. How can you claim that someone is not rehabilitated if you are unwilling to define condi
Re: (Score:2)
In your case, there is no functional difference. You have put no thought into your statement.
You're a liar.
You are going from what you hear from your conservative friends
You're a liar.
what you feel to be correct.
You're a liar.
you claim that someone is not rehabilitated
You're a liar.
The only way you can make that statement true is to provide specific conditions under which you would consider him to be rehabilitated.
You're a liar.
You have repeatedly refused to offer up any such conditions, therefore it is reasonable to see that none exist.
You're a liar.
You brought up Bin Laden, not me
I am not sure if you honestly think that is relevant or if you are telling another lie. I'll presume you're really that stupid and explain it to you: YOU said that the reason I could not call Ayers a terrorist is because a court has not found him to be guilty of terrorist acts. I brought up Bin Laden as an example proving you wrong.
Then YOU changed your argument, saying that the reason Ayers could not be called a terroris
Step back, take a breath (Score:2)
So, lets establish some facts, shall we? Plenty of statements have come forth in vacuo so far. Let's look at what statements and events actually support. As you claim to hold a degree in journalism, you should have an appreciation for facts:
Re: (Score:2)
You have showed plenty of anger ... here.
You're a liar.
Let's start this over ...
No. You're a liar, I've proven it, and you've not acknowledged or apologized for it, so I've no reason to bother. If you acknoweldge the fact that you lied -- many times over -- when you said that I said or implied Ayers was not rehabilitated, that I criticized people for saying he was rehabilitated, and so on, then I *might* consider reading anything else you have to say on the topic. But you better do it early in your post, or I won't see it. And I'm not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
I have attempted in good faith to try to find common ground in this conversation. You have responded with hostility and arrogance. Just this most recent post includes the hostile remarks of
You're a liar
I've no reason to bother
I *might* consider reading anything else you have to say on the topic
you better do it early in your post, or I won't see it
I'm not holding my breath
I was looking to try to salvage a civilized dialog between us from this mess. Hence I produced a list of what I saw as solid facts regarding the conversations relevant to this dialog. I gave you a chance to respond to that list in the hope that you would do so in a calm, mature, and civilized manner.
Be
Re: (Score:2)
I have attempted in good faith to try to find common ground in this conversation.
You're a liar. You deliberately, repeatedly, lied about what I said. This is not "good faith."
Re: (Score:2)
I have attempted in good faith to try to find common ground in this conversation.
You're a liar. You deliberately, repeatedly, lied about what I said. This is not "good faith."
Please, go back to the message in which I tried in good faith to find common ground in this conversation [slashdot.org] and read the facts that I put forth. I do not belive that the facts laid out in that message contain a single lie. You have indicated that you might have not read that part of the message; so please, go back and read it. Respond to the facts that I laid out so we can try to go somewhere with this conversation. Your allegations of lying are getting tiring and I would like for us to actually try to un
Re: (Score:2)
I do not belive that the facts laid out in that message contain a single lie.
As I didn't read it, I wouldn't know. All I know is you DID lie repeatedly in MANY OTHER comments, and until you admit those lies, I don't care what else you have to say.
Re: (Score:2)
As I didn't read it, I wouldn't know
That is probably the first completely honest comment you have made so far. And even a little humble to boot. We may be making progress.
I don't care what else you have to say.
Never mind, I see you are back to your old self, condescending and judgmental.
You have shown zero interest in having a mature, civilized conversation with me about this topic. You have refused repeatedly to answer nearly every question I have asked of you.
Indeed I cannot think of a single question I have asked you that you have actually given a meaningful reply to.
Re: (Score:2)
You have shown zero interest in having a ... conversation with me about this topic.
Until you reject your lying ways, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
You have shown zero interest in having a ... conversation with me about this topic.
Until you reject your lying ways, yes.
If you have been paying attention, I have repeated none of the alleged lies in the past several comments. I have been trying to start this conversation over for some time now. I would like to have a mature, intelligent conversation with a new start on the topic. Yet you insist on digging up your own interpretation of the past.
If you have no interest in this conversation, please just say so and we'll drop it altogether.
Truthful statements (Score:2)
Pudge [slashdot.org] has not stated Bill Ayers to be rehabilitated.
Pudge has not defined what rehabilitation entails.
Pudge has been asked multiple times to describe rehabilitation.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have been paying attention, I have repeated none of the alleged lies in the past several comments.
Irrelevant until you reject your lies.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem so certain of lying, so I will offer up a couple truthful statements on the issue that you insist on discussing.
Irrelevant until you reject your lies.
Re: (Score:2)
The way you have chosen to carry yourself in this conversation is very much reminiscent of elementary-school childr
Re: (Score:2)
Are you looking for pity?
I'm only looking for you to admit your lies. Well, not really, but I think it's amusing to watch you avoid doing so.
You cannot exhibit the level of civility necessary to hold a mature conversation
Once again, you're a liar. I now stop reading your comment at this point that you've lied.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm only looking for you to admit your lies
Except that the alleged lies are based on differences in opinion, and not actual fact. As you claim to hold a degree in journalism, you should know the difference. If you want to make my earlier statement of you stating Ayers to not be rehabilitated into a lie, then you need to state that he is. You have never made a statement to counter that statement therefore it is not a lie no matter how much you want it to be so.
You cannot exhibit the level of civility necessary to hold a mature conversation
Once again, you're a liar.
Are you calling that statement a lie? Being as you have evaded my questions and state
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the alleged lies are based on differences in opinion, and not actual fact.
You're a liar. I never said or implied in any way that Ayers had not been rehabilitated, nor did I ever attack any claim that he was rehabilitated. All I did was attack the process of ASSUMPTION to come to the view that he was rehabilitated. Similarly, I never in any way attacked or criticized "science," yet you lied repeatedly and said otherwise.
And as you've lied in your first sentence, I won't read past it.
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to send me a message if there ever comes a point in the future where you want to discuss fact and not just your own opinion. We already see enough of your opinion around here and we don't need you to continue restating it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your apology is accepted
I never apologized. You're a liar. As usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Your apology is accepted
I never apologized. You're a liar. As usual.
In the preceding message I laid out the method that you could use to apologize without having to say you were sorry, and you met those conditions. If your ego is too fragile for you to actually extend an apology in traditional terms, that is OK. Your apology is accepted, have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
In the preceding message I laid out the method that you could use to apologize without having to say you were sorry, and you met those conditions.
If you say so. I wouldn't know, as I didn't read them. And as you were explicitly told I didn't read them, and therefore you know I could not have agreed to them, it is therefore a lie for you to say I apologized.
Which is unsurprising since you lie habitually.
Re: (Score:2)
If you say so. I wouldn't know, as I didn't read them.
That is a choice you made.
And as you were explicitly told I didn't read them, and therefore you know I could not have agreed to them
With each message, you have a choice to read or not to read the message. I cannot predict whether or not you will read the entirety of any given message. If you choose not to read what I say, that is due to a choice that was beyond my control.
You agreed implicitly to apologize by calling me a liar. It is not my fault that you did not read that.
it is therefore a lie for you to say I apologized
No, it is not. You made a choice, and that choice included an apology. You could have made a different choice. You have apologize
Re: (Score:2)
That is a choice you made.
And you know of that choice, so you therefore knew I didn't know about it, and therefore didn't agree, to whatever "method" you invented, so you were therefore lying when you said I had apologized. Of course, even if I had any knowledge of your "method" it would still be a lie to say I apologized, since you don't get to make the rules.
As usual, you're just a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a choice you made.
And you know of that choice, so you therefore knew I didn't know about it,
Are you not a sentient human being, capable of your own free thought and free will?
With every message you have the choice to read it or not. It is by no fault of mine that you choose to read or not to read the messages I post. I was not in any way impeding you from reading the messages I sent to you; you made that choice of your own free will. If you chose to not read the message, that is your choice and yours alone.
since you don't get to make the rules.
I specified how you could apologize to me.
You chose to apologize by following that
Re: (Score:2)
It is by no fault of mine that you choose to read or not to read the messages I post.
It IS your fault that you asserted that I agreed to something you knew I had no knowledge of, which is, of course, further evidence -- as if any is needed -- that you are a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
It is by no fault of mine that you choose to read or not to read the messages I post.
It IS your fault that you asserted that I agreed to something you knew I had no knowledge of
Wow, I guess I have a lot more power over you than I ever suspected.
And here I always thought you were a sentient human being, capable of making his own decisions. Apparently my messages bother you so badly that you forgo that and allow me to make decisions for you.
you are a liar.
That statement qualifies under this:
If you continue to throw out accusations of lying, without supporting evidence, I will accept that as your apology for your baseless argument and repeated evasion of my questions.
Which I stated in my previous message [slashdot.org]. I accept your apology for your baseless accusations and your continued evasion of my questions.
Perhaps I can use my great powers over your free will to force you
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I guess I have a lot more power over you than I ever suspected.
Once again you lie. I only said you asserted something, which is a power over yourself, not over me.
And once again I stop reading the rest of your comment.
I estimate I've only read 10 percent or less of every comment you've written in the last few days.
Re: (Score:2)
which is a power over yourself, not over me.
You blamed your not reading my replies on me. Therefore you have given up your own free will and are ignoring most of what I say due to some power beyond your own. You have stated it as though you are not capable of reading entire comments from me.
I truly do feel bad for you, sir. That you are able to allow your emotions to so severely cloud your judgment that you cannot even make choices for yourself regarding what you will or will not read is absolutely tragic.
I accept your apologies for the shame
Re: (Score:2)
You blamed your not reading my replies on me.
You're a liar. I did no such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You blamed your not reading my replies on me.
You're a liar. I did no such thing.
Allow me to repeat it yet one more time:
Your accusation doesn't become true just because you repeat it. You've already demonstrated that you have nothing to say and you don't want a conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me to repeat it yet one more time:
No, I won't. I don't even know what you want to repeat. Didn't get that far.
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me to repeat it yet one more time:
No, I won't.
You won't what? That response didn't make any sense.
Though your earlier allegations didn't, either. So it's par for the course.
Are you enjoying being condescending and evasive? If you respond with more unsubstantiated, unsourced allegations of lying, I will take that to be an affirmative response to my question, and your apology for wasting my time. I don't know why I thought for some reason it would be possible to have a meaningful conversation with you; certainly you have proven that idea wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Though you'll find that Pudge is the type of
Re: (Score:2)
I never have Foe'd someone for having an opposing viewpoint, and I never would.
Liar [slashdot.org].
Oh please. You said, "A is not B." I replied, "A + C is B." You replied, "No, A + D is not B." You misrepresented me, changing "in the face of injustice" to "crossing one of your dogmas." And then you denied you intended that to refer to me ("insane" is right). Then you asserted something equally dishonest, that to me, "getting angry is the equivalent of being a righteous martyr." Nothing I ever said came close to implying that. And then you lied about my supposed motives, saying I "care more for ap
Re: (Score:2)
Ad hominem fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I established my other points previously
Question-begging fallacy.
Fallacies: Life, liberity, and all those liars... (Score:1)
Happy Friday the 13th! And hello to all the people.
Speaking of fallacies, have you ever noticed that those who often quote:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
when they want to claim some right for themselves, are the same people that support the death penalty and incarceration?
Re:Fallacies: Life, liberity, and all those liars. (Score:2)
Speaking of fallacies, have you ever noticed that those who often quote:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
when they want to claim some right for themselves, are the same people that support the death penalty and incarceration?
Where's the fallacy? Thomas Jefferson, who wrote those words, certainly wasn't against incarceration, and neither was anyone else who signed the Declaration. You appear to think that if someone has an unalienable right to liberty, then it violates their rights to lock them up, but that's only true until the point where NOT locking him up allows him to continue to harm the liberty of others.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say that these rights are inalienable "until the point where NOT locking him up allows him to continue to harm the liberties of others"?
I missed that part. Because it is not there.
Neither is "you shall be immune from incarceration," because neither those words, nor the SENSE of those words, is there. You're reading into what you want to be there instead of what is actually there. Again: NO ONE who wrote or signed their name to those words interprets them the way you do.
In fact, the text of the document itself denies your interpretation. Your interpretation necessarily requires that we not only do not incarcerate them, but that we do not hinder anyone's freedom in any way, includin
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so you seem to think the word "inalienable" is used incorrectly.
No. Not all. I believe you are misunderstanding the concept of rights, as used by the Founders.
I have an unalienable right to liberty. When I harm others, I don't lose my right to liberty, but everyone else has a right to protect themselves from me, and that allows them to incarcerate me.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hard to believe that if they have a "right" to protect themselves from me, that I do not have a right to protect myself from them.
Who said you didn't?
Re: (Score:2)
You see, what you do not seem to recognize is that "rights" can be infringed by the government- that is part of the social contract.
Only when the expression of those rights infringes on the rights of others, or is necessary to protect your other rights.
So obviously other rights can be infringed
That's the most insipid "reasoning" I've read in a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
For a rights-taker within the present justice system condemned to death, the rights taker no longer infringes on the rights of others, and the sentence is not necessary to protect the rights of the others.
Of course, that's not true, given the cost of incarceration, and also potentially the danger to others in the facility (other prisoners, guards, staff).
Here I see that you resort to such a comment rather than to reason.
I respond to reason with reason. Your comment demonstrated none. There is no reason behind the notion that if one right is explicitly stated to be un-infringable, that other rights therefore are infringable. That is a completely made-up principle.
Re: (Score:2)
Red herring.
Not at all. You made an argument, I shot down that argument.
The costs incurred in carrying out the necessary functions of the state are not in dispute.
Then my argument's not a fallacy,
Your argument would analogously make summary execution the punishment of all offenses due to cost savings.
No, it wouldn't. You're committing the straw man fallacy. I simply pointed out the fact that you were wrong when you said "the rights taker no longer infringes on the rights of others" while incarcerated.
I have no opinion on whether we should or should not engage in the death penalty. Really. But the argument that "the rights taker no longer infringes on the rights of others" while incarcerated is clearly false
Re: (Score:2)
If you could argue against my argument, you likely would have done so instead of resorting to ad hominem.
Re: (Score:2)
Um. I did. I showed every step of the way why your argument was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I did. I will give you a chance to apologize or demonstrate otherwise before I decide to foe you.
Re: (Score:2)
See, yeah, you don't get to make the rules. First, it's my journal, second, you can't assign motive or intent to me that I don't have. You accused me of lying: all you had to do was show a single argument of yours that I didn't demonstrate was wrong. That's all you had to do. Your refused to back up the claim that I was lying, so you're out: apart from making this personal and going way off topic, it was obvious long ago that you're a troll, and your latest post confirms it for the slow kids in the clas
Re: (Score:2)
See, yeah, you don't get to make the rules.
You're right: however, the rules of logic dictate that you are required to back up your assertions.
I called you a liar. All I have to do is point out a single lie of yours. That's all I have to do.
And you refused, so you were Foe'd. Yep.
Your comment demonstrated [no reason].
That was true. "Your comment" referred to your claim that because one right was claimed to be uninfringable, that others THEREFORE are infringable. That is unreasonable. There's no reason in it. It's like saying that because I note that when I drop this soccer ball, it falls to the ground, that other soccer balls WILL NOT drop to the ground. There's no reason or lo
Re: (Score:2)
you would whine some subjective excuse about why what you said was not a lie
There was nothing subjective about it. It was a simple and objective proof. On the contrary, you've not given a single reason to back up your claim that I lied. You simply asserted it and gave what you said was an example, that I demonstrated was not an example. You didn't actually show it to be a lie, and I actually did show it to be true.
See, now you need to change the rules so you can change a thread that is open to logged in users, to one that is closed to foes.
You're a liar. I did no such thing.
In my opinion, you are all of a liar, a control freak, and a closed minded zealot. And the above thread is my evidence.
For that to be true, you would have had to demonstrate that I lied. You did not even ATTEMPT to do so. You merely asserted it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you know my real name. As do thousands of other people. It's no secret, and there's no "facade." It's just a nickname. And I didn't bother reading your comment past "facade," as I didn't even bother to look at your last two comments. I'm sure it went downhill from there, given past experience.
Re: (Score:2)
graduate of BIOLA, previously known as the Bible Institute of Los Angeles
Wow, I always figured he went to Bob Jones University. Though I see through the BIOLA website that indeed they do have a journalism program, so it certainly is plausible. I actually didn't know there were conservative bible universities on the west coast (though I never looked for them).
practice in self-fullfilment, self-justification, imposing your will on the surrounding environment, and getting others to do what you want them to do. Not to say you are always successful, just saying you are practiced.
That seems to be all in a days work for him.
I find therapy useful.
He would have to admit to not being perfect in order to pursue therapy. He would have to come to realize that indeed he is not the source of all real knowledge and the true l
Re: (Score:2)
No, Biola is right
To clarify, I always suspected Bob Jones University only because it is the first school that comes to mind when I hear of hyper-conservative windbags who claim to have college degrees. I never cared enough to try to figure out where he actually went.
But for a real challenge, how about his birthday? No, it is not September 11. As he once noted...
That is a lot more information than I ever would care to know about him. If anything if I were to know his birthday I'd probably burn a flag on that day just to make him mad.
Sure, he is married...
Poor, poor, woman.
or at least he was
Perhaps she wised up?
Even has offspring
There's a scary idea. Children are by nat
Re: (Score:2)
Liar! You could, you just don't want to! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I really could not resist.
If that is true -- and it's not, but if it is -- then you should seek help. Such compulsions can get you into serious trouble.