|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 73
I....DRINK....YOUR.....MILKSHAKE!!! 25+ posts
|
|
I....DRINK....YOUR.....MILKSHAKE!!! 25+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 73 |
Seek help. Seriously.
Carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. It can refocus the scope of an argument or be a legitimate step of a proof by exhaustion. In contrast the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.
That was one goddamn helluva show. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 12,912
Kneel! 10000+ posts
|
|
Kneel! 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 12,912 |
is this where the youtube videos come in?
big_pimp_tim-made it cool to roll in the first damn place! Mon Jun 11 2007 09:27 PM- harley finally rolled with me "I'm working with him...he's young but, there is much potential. He can apprentice with me and then he's yours for final training. He will remember the face of his father... Some day, Knutreturns just may be the greatest of us all...."-THE bastard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Seek help. Seriously.
Carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. It can refocus the scope of an argument or be a legitimate step of a proof by exhaustion. In contrast the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. I used your exact quote and I responded to it with a direct statement. Not an interpretation of your meaning. You're floundering.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185 |
Seek help. Seriously.
Carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. It can refocus the scope of an argument or be a legitimate step of a proof by exhaustion. In contrast the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. I used your exact quote and I responded to it with a direct statement. Not an interpretation of your meaning. You're floundering. You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,546
Living the dream 15000+ posts
|
|
Living the dream 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,546 |
 (ps. Pariah did you fuck that 655 chick yet?)  Don't hurt your knees bending over for Pariah, m'kay? We gotta get Sikk to find a few good circle jerk pics. google images too much effort for you? and I thought I was lazy...  The great debater has spoken! No more google pics.  I'm just saying, it's a bit disappointing to see you toss off (heh) yet another tired homosexual reference regarding one poster following after another one and then say 'geez, I hope someone does all the work for me!' You don't have to be homo to a suck up. Have you spent your entire life on this board? '...don't have to be homo to a suck up...'  I really don't think it's nitpicking, in this instance, to tell you it would have helped to give that sentence another look before clicking 'submit'. though I guess submitting is kind of a reflex for you by this point. to answer your question, we have these cool little text fields that tell you the date each of us registered on rob's damn boards. if you look carefully at them, you can deduce through careful arithmetic exactly how long each of us has been a member of rob's damn boards. thank you and have a wonderful afternoon. So now that I've owned you are you going to follow me around correcting my spelling too? did I miss something, whomod? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right. There has been no denial. I have specifically pointed out the difference between responding to posters on your home board versus migrating to another board to tell the posters there that they are evil immoral individuals that are going to hell. I'm sure you'd like that to be a strawman, but it's not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185 |
You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right. There has been no denial. I have specifically pointed out the difference between responding to posters on your home board versus migrating to another board to tell the posters there that they are evil immoral individuals that are going to hell. I'm sure you'd like that to be a strawman, but it's not. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. Actually, it doesn't. Try again. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. There has been no denial. I'm sensing a pattern here...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
That's some careful editing you did there Dan! You should get a medal!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185 |
That's some careful editing you did there Dan! You should get a medal! Didn't edit anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 54
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 54 |
You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right. There has been no denial. I have specifically pointed out the difference between responding to posters on your home board versus migrating to another board to tell the posters there that they are evil immoral individuals that are going to hell. I'm sure you'd like that to be a strawman, but it's not. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. Actually, it doesn't. Try again. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. There has been no denial. I'm sensing a pattern here...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
That's some careful editing you did there Dan! You should get a medal! Didn't edit anything. Actually, you did.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185 |
That's some careful editing you did there Dan! You should get a medal! Didn't edit anything. Actually, you did. So this is you buckling? You're welcome to prove me wrong but that's exactly what you said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Yes, abridging does qualify as editing Dan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 54
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 54 |
Yes, abridging does qualify as editing Dan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right. There has been no denial. I have specifically pointed out the difference between responding to posters on your home board versus migrating to another board to tell the posters there that they are evil immoral individuals that are going to hell. I'm sure you'd like that to be a strawman, but it's not. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. Actually, it doesn't. Try again. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. There has been no denial. I'm sensing a pattern here... No lies. Just exposing Daniel's ignorance in regards to straw men and pots and kettles.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185 |
You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right. There has been no denial. I have specifically pointed out the difference between responding to posters on your home board versus migrating to another board to tell the posters there that they are evil immoral individuals that are going to hell. I'm sure you'd like that to be a strawman, but it's not. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. Actually, it doesn't. Try again. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. There has been no denial. I'm sensing a pattern here... No lies. Just exposing Daniel's ignorance in regards to straw men and pots and kettles. You expose nothing through vague denial. You only add to the list.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Yes, abridging does qualify as editing Dan. So you approve of editing quotes? Hurm....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185 |
Yes, abridging does qualify as editing Dan. So you approve of editing quotes? Hurm.... Your pathetic. Find the quotes and post them. Post links to where you posted them. You won't because you know I'm right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right. There has been no denial. I have specifically pointed out the difference between responding to posters on your home board versus migrating to another board to tell the posters there that they are evil immoral individuals that are going to hell. I'm sure you'd like that to be a strawman, but it's not. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. Actually, it doesn't. Try again. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. There has been no denial. I'm sensing a pattern here... No lies. Just exposing Daniel's ignorance in regards to straw men and pots and kettles. You expose nothing through vague denial. You only add to the list. Well, if you knew how to backtrack as well as you knew how to separate terse replies from overall statements, you'd understand pretty well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Yes, abridging does qualify as editing Dan. So you approve of editing quotes? Hurm.... Your pathetic. Find the quotes and post them. Post links to where you posted them. You won't because you know I'm right. Now why would I remove the burden of proof from the one who provided the "quote unquote" quotes. WHAT HAVE I TOLD YOU ABOUT THE PHRASE OF POTS AND KETTLES?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185 |
You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right. There has been no denial. I have specifically pointed out the difference between responding to posters on your home board versus migrating to another board to tell the posters there that they are evil immoral individuals that are going to hell. I'm sure you'd like that to be a strawman, but it's not. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. Actually, it doesn't. Try again. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. There has been no denial. I'm sensing a pattern here... No lies. Just exposing Daniel's ignorance in regards to straw men and pots and kettles. You expose nothing through vague denial. You only add to the list. Well, if you knew how to backtrack as well as you knew how to separate terse replies from overall statements, you'd understand pretty well. Uh-huh 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185 |
Yes, abridging does qualify as editing Dan. So you approve of editing quotes? Hurm.... Your pathetic. Find the quotes and post them. Post links to where you posted them. You won't because you know I'm right. Now why would I remove the burden of proof from the one who provided the "quote unquote" quotes. Burdens on you, buddy. I posted them, you DENIED them, now you have to prove you're right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
You say that, but you never manage to come up with anything other than denial as a retort. That's why I said you proved Doc's point before. BTW, Doc has always been right. There has been no denial. I have specifically pointed out the difference between responding to posters on your home board versus migrating to another board to tell the posters there that they are evil immoral individuals that are going to hell. I'm sure you'd like that to be a strawman, but it's not. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. Actually, it doesn't. Try again. No guilt, no weakness, no contradictions. Just your own bias. There has been no denial. I'm sensing a pattern here... No lies. Just exposing Daniel's ignorance in regards to straw men and pots and kettles. You expose nothing through vague denial. You only add to the list. Well, if you knew how to backtrack as well as you knew how to separate terse replies from overall statements, you'd understand pretty well. Uh-huh So you admit to selective quoting. Splendid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Yes, abridging does qualify as editing Dan. So you approve of editing quotes? Hurm.... Your pathetic. Find the quotes and post them. Post links to where you posted them. You won't because you know I'm right. Now why would I remove the burden of proof from the one who provided the "quote unquote" quotes. Burdens on you, buddy. I posted them, you DENIED them, now you have to prove you're right. *sigh* When will the poor dearies learn.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Yes, abridging does qualify as editing Dan. So you approve of editing quotes? Hurm.... You 'r e pathetic. Find the quotes and post them. Post links to where you posted them. You won't because you know I'm right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 414
Bringer of Change 400+ posts
|
|
Bringer of Change 400+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 414 |
Hey "Pariah," didn't we already get rid of you? Haven't you learned your lesson yet? Your time here is through. Hit the bricks. Our Pariah is vastly superior to your gimmick, or reality, of being a pedophile.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185 |
Hey "Pariah," didn't we already get rid of you? Haven't you learned your lesson yet? Your time here is through. Hit the bricks. Our Pariah is vastly superior to your gimmick, or reality, of being a pedophile. Pariah's pretty much destroyed himself. We should turn our attention to that little shit Sammitch.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 414
Bringer of Change 400+ posts
|
|
Bringer of Change 400+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 414 |
What's his deal? Necrophilia? Incest? Compulsive masturbater?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 185 |
What's his deal? Necrophilia? Incest? Compulsive masturbater? He's addicted to sitting on the internet and correcting the spelling mistakes of people that have owned him. I'm guessing he's into Coprophilia.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 414
Bringer of Change 400+ posts
|
|
Bringer of Change 400+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 414 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Hey "Pariah," didn't we already get rid of you? Haven't you learned your lesson yet? Your time here is through. Hit the bricks. Our Pariah is vastly superior to your gimmick, or reality, of being a pedophile. Pariah's pretty much destroyed himself. We should turn our attention to that little shit Sammitch. wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,546
Living the dream 15000+ posts
|
|
Living the dream 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,546 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
Hey "Pariah," didn't we already get rid of you? Haven't you learned your lesson yet? Your time here is through. Hit the bricks. Our Pariah is vastly superior to your gimmick, or reality, of being a pedophile. Pariah's pretty much destroyed himself. We should turn our attention to that little shit Sammitch. dude, you aint sposed to eat poo on bread!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
You would do well to heed the words of Behr Jason. The weak have one weapon: the errors of those who think they are strong Now, you see, this is the INTERNET, you can't really use such mumbo jumbo here. Because your supposed "strength" is basically worthless when it remains on the Internet. Even in the extremely unlikely event that you win a victory here, what have you really won? I don't particulalrly like or dislike any of you. I'm just passing time until the caffeine leaves my system so I can go to bed. ...and how is describing your avatar as fighting evil with one hand in an allegorical Ptolemaic vagina complimentary?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Hey "Pariah," didn't we already get rid of you? Haven't you learned your lesson yet? Your time here is through. Hit the bricks. Our Pariah is vastly superior to your gimmick, or reality, of being a pedophile. Pariah's pretty much destroyed himself. We should turn our attention to that little shit Sammitch. dude, you aint sposed to eat poo on bread! Water cracker, dude. With hommus and garlic pitted green olives.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Hell, they've identified our collective Kryptonite!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
Hey "Pariah," didn't we already get rid of you? Haven't you learned your lesson yet? Your time here is through. Hit the bricks. Our Pariah is vastly superior to your gimmick, or reality, of being a pedophile. Pariah's pretty much destroyed himself. We should turn our attention to that little shit Sammitch. dude, you aint sposed to eat poo on bread! Water cracker, dude. With hommus and garlic pitted green olives. today's amouse brought to you by chef dave!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
