|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: farenheit 9/11 (the "liberal media", other things relating to film maker Michael Moore) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Verzem writes:
quote: What is the point of buying a few thousand rounds?
quote: On the contrary. No rational person can claim that the situation is inherently innocent. When you buy something, you intend to use it.
quote: And who needs thousands upon thousands of rounds for sport shooting? That needs to be bought in one sitting? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jar responds to me:
quote:quote: No, that isn't what I asked. I said a few thousand rounds, not a few hundred. The point, and please let us not get bogged down in specific numbers, is that there is a difference between buying enough for what you're going to use that day or week and buying ten times that amount. Someone plunking down a hundred bucks for a thousand rounds is one thing. Someone plunking down a thousand bucks is something else.
quote:quote: You mean it never occurred to you to wonder what it was going to be used for?
quote:quote: No, that isn't what I said. You're an order of magnitude off. Assuming every day, 500 rounds a day, that's still only 3,500 rounds. I'm talking about much more than that. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jar responds to me:
quote: Didn't I say that we shouldn't get bogged down on a specific number? Whether or not the "typical" number of 5 or 5,000, vastly exceeding the "typical" number is noticeable.
quote:quote: Into what? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Verzem responds to me:
quote: And it doesn't occur to you that the more of something that is inherently dangerous a person buys in one fell swoop, the more likely it is that someone might want it to be used for negative purposes? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Verzem responds to me:
quote: Compared to the number of times a bullet is found in a person, how often does body disposal in the lake via chain happen? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote:quote: Incorrect. Instead, it was your mistake in thinking that you get to determine all points raised in a discussion. You see, when people engage in a rational debate, one person will raise a point and the other person will respond by raising a point of his own. You do not get to ignore that point just because it wasn't yours.
quote: And conservatives who are the target of Moore's documentary are a minority of people?
quote: And I do. Some people will be unable to consider a position unless forced into it.
quote: Precisely. Do you seriously think K-mart would have done anything if the cameras weren't on showing them with a kid in a wheelchair being filmed?
quote: I don't see anybody criticizing O'Reilly or Hannity for using emotion-jerking. I see them being criticized for outright lying in an attempt to scare people. Perhaps I should define my terms. I call "emotion-jerking" to be an extreme form of shaming. The focus is upon the target to make them feel bad about themselves in an attempt to get them to change their behaviour. This is different from what the Right pundits do in that they put their focus on other people in an attempt to get the target to feel superior and in danger. There is a difference between "Shame on you, you evil person!" and "You're the chosen and there are evil people who are trying to take that away from you." The former tries to get the target to change his own behaviour. The latter tries to get the target to change somebody else's behaviour.
quote: They already do. It's acceptable in the theatre because that's the point: Fiction is the lie that tells a truth and all that. But when you claim to be "fair and balanced" as Fox does, when you claim to tell only the truth as the Right does, saying things that aren't true and getting indignant when those falsehoods are pointed out is something quite different than "dramatic license."
quote:quote: Yes. Here's a hint: Bowling for Columbine wasn't just about Columbine. Moore went to a bank that had as their promotion a rifle with the opening of an account. As he asked, "Don't you think it's odd to give away guns at a bank?" In no way, shape, or form was Moore trying to say that this would have stopped Columbine. Harris and Klebold didn't get their guns from a bank promotion. You see, Columbine was simply a symbol for the larger issue of violence and American culture. The Right tried to make Columbine a symbol of atheism, completely ignoring the fact that the area is highly religious. There was even a book titled She Said Yes about Cassie Bernall and how she was supposedly asked if she believed in god, she said she did, and was promptly killed. But that isn't what happened. Instead, Valeen Schnurr was asked if she believed in god, she said she did, she was then asked why, she said she just did and that was the way she was raised...and she wasn't shot. Emily Wyant was with Bernall when she was shot and she claims Bernall was never asked about her faith. Instead, Bernall was crying, "Dear god, dear god, why is this happening to me? I want to go home." Klebold then pounded on the table where both Wyant and Bernall were hiding, shouted "Peekaboo," and promptly shot Bernall. Are you saying you completely missed the symbolism?
quote:quote: Incorrect. Even as a figurative expression, "panacea" means "cure-all." So unless you were being sarcastic and claiming that people who are pushing for bullet tracing are thinking it will be a panacea, there is absolutely no way to interpret what you said in any logical manner. The word literally does not mean what you think it means...not even as a figure of speech.
quote: But that isn't a panacea. That's a palliative. If it were a panacea, then all you would need to do is bullet tracing and all gun crime would go away. Since the death penalty didn't seem to make a dent in violent crime, I find it hard to believe anybody thinks bullet tracing would do any better.
quote:quote: It was meant to stir up the audience and get them to do something so that other vendors get on the wagon. "Think global, act local" and all that.
quote:quote: He didn't. As he pointed out repeatedly, other cultures that share some similar aspects with American culture don't have these problems. Go to the UK where guns are extremely tightly controlled, and there simply isn't nearly the level of gun violence (though, of course, that's a tautology.) But go to Canada where there is just as much gun ownership, and there still isn't nearly as much gun violence. Don't you remember the scene where he walked up to a random house in Canada and simply walked in the front door because it wasn't locked?
quote: But that is the argument. If A, then B. A, therefore B. If you don't have the bullets, you cannot fill a room with bullets. Limiting bullet purchases will reduce the supply of bullets. Therefore there will be fewer rooms filled with bullets. Bullet tracking will not reduce gun violence in and of itself. Instead, it will help to track down those who commit it.
quote: So what is it you need explained? If reducing bullets reduces the ability of people to shoot a whole bunch of other people, what would reducing the availability of bullets do?
quote: Their bombs didn't go off. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote:quote: Where one of the specific and intended purposes is killing another person? Cars are dangerous and you can buy as many cars as you want, but cars aren't intended to be used to kill others. Nobody advertises cars as "skull crushing" the way bullets are advertised as "armor piercing." If somebody buys a huge amount of something that has as one of its multiple intentions the death of other people, it never occurs to you to consider the implications and whether or not that intention might be involved?
quote: It was. That's why the various FBI agents were reporting it to their superiors.
quote: I would be, too. It's called "deviation from the norm." Deviation below the norm is just as curious as deviation above it. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jar responds to me:
quote:quote: Maybe it's because I'm a mathematician. You see, I understand the concept of "deviation from the norm." It's an abstraction, I know, but the concept is that what the specific norm is isn't as important as the deviation from it. It's that mathematical attitude that leads to jokes like this: An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician all check into an hotel and fortunately for this joke, a fire breaks out in each room. The engineer jumps up, grabs a piece of paper and a pencil, makes some observations and notations, finds the closest fire extinguisher, puts out the fire, and goes back to sleep in a dry bed. The physicist jumps up, grabs the telephone book and a crayon, makes some observations and notations, finds the furthest fire hose, douses the entire room, and goes back to sleep in a wet bed. The mathematician jumps up, grabs a piece of chalk and uses the wall, makes some observations and notations, declares a solution exists, and goes back to sleep in a dry bed. Sometimes, knowing that an answer is out there is more significant than knowing what that answer is. Merten's Conjecture, for example, will fail sometime before 101070 (that's a 1 followed by 1070 zeroes.) I don't think anybody has calculated where it first fails, but it isn't really important. It's the fact that it fails that is important. What a normative number of bullets is isn't really important. It's the extreme deviation from that normative amount that is important. Somebody buying the store out is worrisome as is someone buying only three.
quote:quote:quote: Why? If there is an object where one of its primary purposes is to kill somebody, are you seriously saying that we shouldn't consider why somebody would want a lot of it? I'm hardly saying that bullets are only for killing people, but it is disingenuous to downplay that intention. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: No, it was hyperbole.
quote: It had to do with Heston's inability to see how his statements might lead to certain consequences.
quote: And it's impossible for Heston to be such a thing? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: As crash pointed out, you can't huff latex paint. But in many areas of the country, if you're under 18 and you try to buy spray paint, you're probably a tagger. And thus, you need to be over 18 to buy it. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote:quote: (*chuckle*) Just because you don't like the way I respond to your point doesn't mean I didn't respond to it.
quote:quote: Jeffords left the party, didn't he? He became ashamed of what the Republicans had come to be and do and stand for. And if their constituency can come to the opinion that their actions are shameful, perhaps they'll be voted out of office and they'll have some time to reconsider their actions. You need to think big picture.
quote:quote: Who on earth is talking about "all documentaries"? If some people need porn to be their medium, then so be it...those seeking to get their message out might want to consider it. They might decide not to go down that route, but I'm a bit surprised to hear you of all people complaining about porn.
quote:quote: Then I would say you are horrendously naive.
quote:quote: I am watching TV and I am reading your posts. The thing is, I claim that O'Reilly and Hannity aren't emotion-jerking. They're simply lying. As I said before, "emotion-jerking" in my book is an attempt at shaming the target in order to change the target's behaviour. What O'R and H are doing isn't "emotion-jerking." Instead, they are trying to scare the target in order to get the target to change someone else's behaviour.
quote:quote: What if your definition makes no sense? Like your claim that "panacea" means something other than "cure-all"? The actions of M cannot be compared to O'R and H because they do not have the same intent.
quote:quote: I understand that a documentary about Moore is coming up. I haven't heard any comments from Moore about it. Would you care to supply some? On the other hand, I got to watch the conference with O'Reilly and Franken and see just what a putz O'R is, constantly interrupting F to try and claim that he wasn't lying.
quote:quote: Glad to be of service. Your arguments seemed to be fixated on the idea that Moore was trying to make a movie about how Columbine, specifically, could have been stopped. I got that impression when you started whining that Moore's stunt with K-Mart wouldn't have done anything to stop Columbine... ...as if there was any intent by any of the players involved that it would have. So since Moore knew his K-Mart stunt wasn't about stopping Columbine, why were you complaining that his stunt wouldn't have stopped Columbine?
quote: Consider the possibility that you didn't. Perhaps the problem is that you weren't talking about it and you should have...that your analysis was lacking a serious investigation of those things you ignored...that your point fails because it is contradicted by that which you ignored.
quote: But that's precisely the point: It was not suggesting it would have helped prevent Columbine. Have you considered the possibility that you simply screwed up? That you missed the point entirely?
quote:quote: Uh, yes. In your personal lexicon, it may mean something else, but I don't speak your lexicon.
quote: I didn't have to die. I simply mastered the language. And I looked it up. And yes, I know that dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive, but dicitionaries do help us get an idea of how words are being used. I couldn't find anything that indicated that panacea could be used in a way akin to palliative. Panacea means "cure-all." It means that it solves everything. That's the point: Whatever ails you, this fixes it. Not softens it or takes the edge off or makes it tolerable: It cures it.
quote: How does "cure-all" not mean "cure-all"? How does "cure-all" mean "no cure but reduces symptoms"?
quote:quote: (*sigh*) From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: panacea Pronunciation: "pa-n&-'sE-& Function: noun Etymology: Latin, from Greek panakeia, from panakEs all-healing, from pan- + akos remedy : a remedy for all ills or difficulties : CURE-ALL - panacean /-'sE-&n/ adjective That's the entire entry. The word literally means "cure-all."
Main Entry: palliate Pronunciation: 'pa-lE-"At Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -ated; -ating Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin palliatus, past participle of palliare to cloak, conceal, from Latin pallium cloak 1 : to reduce the violence of (a disease) : ABATE 2 : to cover by excuses and apologies 3 : to moderate the intensity of - palliation /"pa-lE-'A-sh&n/ noun - palliator /'pa-lE-"A-t&r/ noun Now tell me how "reduce," "cover," or "moderate" is equivalent to "remedy" or "cure."
quote: If you were talking about a reduction and not a cure, then you meant something other than "panacea." If you didn't mean palliative, then you meant something else. It's like arguing with riVeRraT over whether or not "like" is equivalent to "as" when used as a comparative adjective.
quote:quote: But nobody claims that. And that wasn't what you were arguing Message 183:
Tracking is a panacea. As it stands I am fine with using the police forces we have to track down perpetrators once crimes have been commited. Now, how could bullet tracking be a panacea if it doesn't end the need for finding those who have committed crime? That's what a "panacea" is! A cure-all!
quote: But if it were a panacea, then the only thing you would need to do is bullet tracking and nobody, not even you is suggesting that. So since you weren't suggesting that bullet tracking was the only thing we needed to do, how could it be a panacea of any kind, literal or figurative? Perhaps you meant to talk about the degree of effect bullet tracking would have?
quote:quote: Ah, so you've fallen for the creationist argument: Because it doesn't help everything, then it must not help anything. You're absolutely right that those who make their own ammo and file the barrels to screw up the rifling will get past the databases. Why does that mean we shouldn't maintain these databases to help us find those who don't?
quote: So you're arguing about cost, not concept. Why didn't you say that in the first place?
quote:quote: See, this is why I am of the opinion that you missed the entire point of the movie.
quote:quote: Have you considered that what you said and what you meant didn't coincide? You've already screwed up on the word "panacea." It's impossible that you screwed up something else?
quote:quote: Given your comments, apparently not. You got some of it but not all of it.
quote:quote: You're going to have to. It's your burden of proof. I have provided a logically correct statement. If you wish to claim that it is false, then it is your responsibility to indicate where something has gone amiss. Perhaps what I think is A isn't really A. Perhaps what I think is B isn't really B. Perhaps B isn't logically implied from A. Until you actually indicate the problem, the syllogism stands as logically valid.
quote: It isn't a syllogism. Syllogisms are logical statements containing three categorical propositions, two premises and one conclusion. The premises must be of one of the AEIO formats: A: All S are PE: No S are P I: Some S are P O: Some S are not P Depending upon how the terms are combined, you may or may not have a truthful statement. For example, at least one of the premises must be affirmative (A or I). Another is that if you have a negative premise, you must have a negative conclusion. The classic syllogism is: All men are mortal.Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Instead, it is a propositional logical statement. If A, then B.A, therefore B. Logical errors arising from such constructions are not syllogistic errors such as Illicit Minor/Major but rather propositional errors such as Affirming the Consequent or Denying the Antecedent.
quote: How many people out there make their own bullets? Let's try to keep this in the realm of the ordinary, shall we? I seem to recall a similar argument about sexual activity and having to point out that we shouldn't really be talking about the raped, the coerced, or the mentally ill. Instead, we should be talking about people who are acting under their own volition without coercion.
quote: What does the number of bullets available have to do with bullets filling a room?
quote:quote: Oh, my, what poor, poor rhetorical skills. The attempt to avoid the issue by searching for the most oddball exceptions that aren't being discussed and will readily be admitted as outliers. Now please justify your claim of equivocation. That is, please explain how reducing availability of an object does not necessarily lead to a reduction in presence of that object? If a process can only be activated upon available items and a secondary process reduces the number of items available, doesn't that necessarily reduce the instances of the first process?
quote:quote: How many people did they kill with bombs and how many did they kill with guns? If the choice is between something that kills a lot of people or something that doesn't kill nearly as many, I think I'd go for the latter assuming I can't choose to select neither.
quote: How many people are killed each year from bombs? How many people are killed each year from bullets?
quote: Incorrect. You simply missed the point. Given their dismal abilities at creating effective bombs, I would much rather they have tried to kill people with bombs. Fewer people would have died.
quote:quote: ...are not specifically intended to kill other people unless one gets into the combat knife. Most people don't have combat knives and I doubt Ginsu intended that you'd take that amazing cleaver and use your roommate to test how well it chops through bone. Let's try to keep this in the realm of the ordinary, shall we?
quote: Depending upon the number and type, yes.
quote:quote: Stop right there. Not "can" kill someone. We're not talking about the possibility of maybe someone attempting to use the object to kill somebody. We're talking about the situation where one of the deliberate intentions is to kill somebody. You "can" kill someone with a baseball bat, but the manufacturers of baseball bats never intended for you to do it. A bullet, on the other hand, has as one of its many purposes the intent of being used to kill somebody.
quote: Indeed, but it is much easier to kill a person by filling the room with bullets. Walk into a classroom with one bullet, and you'll be hard pressed to injure let alone kill even half the people in it. Do a roomful of bullets, and you'll have a much better shot at it.
quote: Why do you think the BATF wanted to talk to David Koresh?
quote:quote: For the purposes of this discussion, does it matter? Can we agree that it is something above a single bullet and something less than the entire store?
quote: You mean ammunition shops routinely sell all of their ammunition of a certain caliber to a single customer? I didn't think I needed to justify the obvious.
quote:quote: See...now you're starting to get it. Hyperbole is often used in humor.
quote: Yep. You see, the two are different things. You might think they are the same thing, but you are wrong. The fact that you try to define them as the same thing doesn't mean you get to use it. In another thread, riVeRraT tried to claim that when making a comparison, "like" doesn't mean the same thing as "as." He's simply wrong. He can continue with that claim of his, but it is predicated upon an invalid premise and all of his statement made after that are unjustified because of it.
quote: But emotion-jerking isn't hyperbole.
quote: I do when your definition is wrong. If we have painted the walls such that they reflect light only of 700 nm, you can call it "blue" all you want, but you're wrong. "Blue" does not mean that. The word you were looking for is "red."
quote: And irony and sarcasm mean nothing to you? See, this is why I claim you missed the point of the movie.
quote:quote:quote: Your point was that Heston is a heartless (or mindless) thug?
quote: Why? If he engenders a culture that leads to people feeling that they have to use a gun to stop "them," how is that not being a heartless/mindless thug?
quote: If you go well beyond the norm, one wonders what you're going to do with it. It's flammable, after all.
quote:quote: That the circumstances surrounding what would otherwise be an innocuous activity can convert it into a suspicious activity.
quote: Um, tagging has nothing to do with getting high in and of itself.
quote: That's what I just said: In some areas, tagging is rampant and limits have been imposed on the sale of spray paint.
quote: In the minds of those who passed the legislation, no. Or, more accurately, those under 18 are less likely to have any non-graffiti purpose for spray paint than those over 18. Those over 18 are much more likely to have a non-graffiti purpose for spray paint. You don't huff spray paint, either.
quote: Since it wasn't a syllogism, you're going to be waiting quite some time. For someone who was whining so much about my logic, your failure to recognize a propositional logic statement as distinguished from a syllogism is disheartening.
quote: That isn't my argument. Instead, I am defending Moore's presentation of that argument. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me....well, no, he doesn't. He seems to think that "ya jerk" is an actual response.
quote: It most certainly is. It's a direct descendant of "tear-jerking" which is a term describing a dramatic piece deliberately designed to elicit a sympathetic, emotional response of pathos filled with crying. Hate to break it to you, but you did not coin the phrase.
quote: Which is fine...except that you decided to latch onto the wounded victim role and rather than simply saying, "Oops, my mistake." you decided to go on and on and on about how "panacea" really did mean something other than "cure-all."
quote: Then it means that I actually understand the language. The two are, essentially, opposites. A panacea effects a cure, a placebo does nothing. Now, something can be pushed as a panacea when it is actually a placebo, but the two cannot actually exist in the same object. Something cannot cure and do nothing at the same time. And if you bring up the placebo effect, it will only show that you're simply arguing for the sake of railing against me.
quote: If you were being lazy, why did you demand that I put the argument in "proper terms" when I already had done so, Message 219:
But that is the argument. If A, then B. A, therefore B. If you don't have the bullets, you cannot fill a room with bullets. Limiting bullet purchases will reduce the supply of bullets. Therefore there will be fewer rooms filled with bullets. So now what?
quote: So will you explain where it's going wrong?
quote: But that's the point: I made a logically valid argument. Any argument of the form "If A, then B. A, therefore B" is true. If you don't have the bullets, you cannot fill a room with bullets. Limiting bullet purchases will reduce the supply of bullets. Therefore there will be fewer rooms filled with bullets. Where does the logic fail?
quote: That isn't quite what I said. Here's what I actually said:
I have provided a logically correct statement. If you wish to claim that it is false, then it is your responsibility to indicate where something has gone amiss. Perhaps what I think is A isn't really A. Perhaps what I think is B isn't really B. Perhaps B isn't logically implied from A. Until you actually indicate the problem, the syllogism stands as logically valid. And I admit right here that I screwed up and used "syllogism." You got me going and I fell for it. That said, let's look at the point of what I said. A statement of the form "If A, then B. A, therefore B" is always logically valid. The response to that is not, as you seem to think I said, to claim that the form could lead to a false conclusion. Instead, it is to show that the claims really aren't what they are claimed to be. That is, you don't assail the conglomeration but rather the pieces: If A, then B may be true, but the specific example is not an instance of A ("All squares are rectangles, true, but that's a circle you've got there, not a square.") Or the example isn't an instance of B ("All squares are rectangles, but you seem to be arguing that that square is behaving like a circle.") Or maybe A doesn't really imply B ("No, all rectangles are not squares.") You aren't arguing against the structure, you are arguing against the example.
quote: But I am not defending his argument. I'm defending that the way he presented it was coherent and reasoned. That doesn't make it right. An argument can be wrong and still be presented in an appropriate way. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Adminnemooseus responds to me:
quote: Like holmes' rant? Like something that is just begging a response of, "You're not even responding to my comments." You see, it's hard to realistically claim that a point wasn't addressed when you directly quoted it and then immediately responded to it. It's a habit I picked up from my old USENET days. Is this a warning? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote:quote: Did you bother to do any research on this before you responded? You did not coin the term, holmes. A simple Google search for "emotion-jerking" returned 72 results. Only two of them are us. Are you seriously implying that they all read this forum and then used your term to refer to music? Hell, a lot of them are in reference to Farenheit 9/11...so it would seem that your opinion isn't unique.
quote: But only afterward. You used a term that I already understood to mean something having encountered it many other places.
quote: (*sigh*) No, I guess you didn't do any research at all. I hate having to do other people's homework. Fine: http://www.tosbbs2.com/mmc/reviews.php?contestid=32&songi...
Gorgeous. The music is so emotion jerking - you'd think it was a love song, not a piece about leaves falling... Review of Love Actually (***) by Marty Mapes - Movie Habit
Because the movie does allow itself some fantastic moments, it's easier to accept the shift from funny to touching to sad. Emotion-jerking movies annoy if they're not handled just right. In Love Actually, timing, mood, and performances are well coordinated, and you almost never feel jerked. dvdangle.com
Add in the talented Vicellous Reon Shannon as Lesra Martin and John Hannah, Deborah Kara Unger, and Liev Schreiber (as the Canadian amalgamation) and you've got a heart wrenching, emotion jerking, passion filled movie that cannot be contained by any words -- it must be seen to be understood. quote:quote: But only in the sense that all other worries are so minor and innocuous as to be insignificant. That's the point: It cures. It isn't a masking, a cover, or a reduction to a manageable problem. It is a CURE. Nobody was claiming that bullet tracing would cure violence or even reduce it in any significant way...other than you who is arguing against it. Instead, it was brought forth as a method to help find those who commit violence after they have committed it.
quote: It was a question, remember? You used a word that didn't mean what you were trying to make it mean and I tried to find another word that seemed to mean what you were trying to say and had a related pronunciation and spelling. I apologize for missing your use of "placebo" (which doesn't mean "cure," either). It makes sense. But in the end, "panacea" and "placebo" are essentially antonyms. The first is a cure, the second is a fake.
quote:quote: But that isn't what you said. You didn't say or even imply that it was being pushed as a panacea. You said it was. Message 183:
Tracking is a panacea. As it stands I am fine with using the police forces we have to track down perpetrators once crimes have been commited. Where does one get the impression that you were talking about this being pushed as a panacea?
quote:quote: Nope. It's a question of simple meaning. You said "syllogism." You meant "syllogism." You wouldn't have demanded that I put the argument in "proper form" (since syllogism are created in formal logic by using a specific form) if you didn't think you were talking about a "syllogism." You even decided to make a childish game out of it. The problem was it wasn't a syllogism. It was a propositional logic statement, and it had already been put in formal form. And instead of simply saying, "Oops, my mistake," you've decided to throw a fit. In the end, it really doesn't matter what word you used. The important aspect is that you got pissed that I called you up on it and rather than simply letting it go, you decided to dig in your heels. You've been doing it throughout this exchange.
quote: And it had already been given to you in Message 219:
But that is the argument. If A, then B. A, therefore B. If you don't have the bullets, you cannot fill a room with bullets. Limiting bullet purchases will reduce the supply of bullets. Therefore there will be fewer rooms filled with bullets. What more "proper form" is there?
quote: No, that's your job. You're the one claiming that it isn't justified, therefore it is your burden of proof to show that it isn't. What has been overlooked? Be specific.
quote:quote: Incorrect. If you were "just rolling with it," then you wouldn't have dared me to put the argument in "proper form." Instead, you decided to play a childish game, refusing to simply say, "Oops, my mistake."
quote: But I did precisely what you had asked:
Message 219:
But that is the argument. If A, then B. A, therefore B. If you don't have the bullets, you cannot fill a room with bullets. Limiting bullet purchases will reduce the supply of bullets. Therefore there will be fewer rooms filled with bullets. No matter what you called it, I had put the argument in "proper form" and had done so long before you asked me to. So if you're so up for this "communication" of yours (heaven forbid I should try to think you mean what is commonly meant by that word), then what on earth is the problem? I gave you precisely what you asked for and now you're whining that it didn't turn out the way you wanted it to be.
quote:quote: So argue already! You seem to be saying that I should be the one to find the fault in my own argument. If it's my argument, don't you think I would think it doesn't have a fault? That's your job, holmes. If you think my argument is wrong, you need to show why it is wrong. You don't need to provide the actual answer, but you do need to show that there is a problem. Step up to the plate! Why are you hesitating?
quote: And that's the way it works. The form is inherently logically valid as I pointed out in Message 219:
But that is the argument. If A, then B. A, therefore B. If you don't have the bullets, you cannot fill a room with bullets. Limiting bullet purchases will reduce the supply of bullets. Therefore there will be fewer rooms filled with bullets. Therefore, if you're going to argue against it, you're going to have to show where the problem is. But that is your job to do, holmes, not mine. If you cannot display where the problem is, then the argument necessarily stands because it is in an inherently logically correct format.
quote: Then explain it. We're all waiting. The format was put forward for you, so please detail the specific problems.
quote: Such as....? What are these "hidden premises"? Be specific. We're waiting.
quote: No, I'm saying that whether or not I believe in the argument is irrelevant. The presentation of the argument, however, was perfectly legitimate. This started with you complaining about Moore's treatment of Heston. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
Well, no, he doesn't. Nothing but ad hominem commentary from beginning to end. I will sink to that level for only one comment:
quote: Oh, you wanna play the credentialing game. Fine. I have a degree in Mathematics. When it comes to logic, I outrank you. Now, answer the question: Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation? You are the one claiming that it doesn't. Therefore, it is your burden to justify it. No, not "hints." You need to actually spit it out. We're waiting. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024