Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   farenheit 9/11 (the "liberal media", other things relating to film maker Michael Moore)
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 226 of 304 (124428)
07-14-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Rrhain
07-14-2004 4:19 AM


four in one
I'm replying to your last four posts in this one reply...
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.
That's funny because ignoring my point is exactly what YOU did in order to raise your own, and used clips from my post as if they were meant discuss the point you were making.
Rational debate is constructed of people raising separate points, however that coincides with actually addressing the other person's points. Your method is actively destroying rational debate and replacing it with a monologue of your own, pretending people are discussing what you are.
And conservatives who are the target of Moore's documentary are a minority of people?
Are you seriously suggesting that any conservative who is the target of Moore's documentary is going to be affected/converted by his method of "personalization"?
And I do. Some people will be unable to consider a position unless forced into it.
Some won't consider a position unless its inside a hardcore porn film, shall we add that to all docs just to make sure we get everyone?
Reduction to the lowest common denominator does not benefit mankind.
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?
YES. I don't believe in your stock dilemma. It may have taken a bit longer, and it wouldn't have looked as interesting... in other words it wouldn't be entertaining... but there is no saying it would not have happened under different conditions.
I don't see anybody criticizing O'Reilly or Hannity for using emotion-jerking.
Then you are not watching TV, nor reading my posts.
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.
See this is what I am talking about. I started with my definition and was using it, and you were debating this OTHER definition that you had, and appear to feel it is right for you to hang on to it? Hey, I POSTED FIRST. If you are replying to me then stick with my definition.
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."
Uhm... which is different than Moore how? In amounts? Maybe if Moore had a daily news show he'd be caught telling more lies as well. But as it is Rrhain, I have already told you that up close and personal I have seen him making falsehoods. Sorry, but you can't explain away THAT personal experience.
Yes.
No. Heheheh.
Here's a hint: Bowling for Columbine wasn't just about Columbine.
Oh WOW, Rrhain. You just opened my eyes. How stupid of me to not understand all of this SYMBOLISM! I mean you go into shit I wasn't even talking about and so it must mean I didn't understand it either!
To say the segment on bullets was not suggesting it would help prevent tragedies such as Columbine is ridiculous.
But then I guess maybe its just up to personal opinion. You got yours I got mine. Given how wrong all your other assessments regarding Moore's work is, I'll take your opinion with just a bit of salt.
Even as a figurative expression, "panacea" means "cure-all."
Uh, no. Who died and made you master of languages? There is a large difference between a literal cure-all and a figurative use of the phrase "cure-all".
Your being a stickler for your own interpretation of language and definitions is preventing good communication. You need to relax a bit.
That's a palliative.
No, it is NOT. At least not according to the Mirriam Webster definition. Look, I don't mind expanding my vocabulary, but a palliative is NOT what I was describing. If you think it is then that simply shows you don't know what I was saying.
If it were a panacea, then all you would need to do is bullet tracing and all gun crime would go away.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh... through a deterrent effect, as tracing gets so good no one would dare. Of course that won't actually happen but it is the FEELING that come with such FEEL GOOD legislation. FIGURATIVE PANACEA.
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.
Agreed. And since prohibition has never stopped a market from existing in anything, and people can make and alter their own weapons and ammo, I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks making guns illegal, or bullet tracing will actually help stop gun violence, or actually track murderers.
Or should I say, it COULD help track them, but not much better than regular forensic work, and for the cost of a much greater bureacracy. That adds up to not worth it.
It was meant to stir up the audience and get them to do something so that other vendors get on the wagon.
So instead of dealing with the issue of b/w thinking and hyperbole in dealing with issues, we will STIR UP a bunch of people so they can go and harass people on the fringe of a problem?
Hey yeah that's a great idea. And if they don't comply with public will, maybe some of these "stirred up" people can kill a few execs to make a point, just like the anti-abortion crowd who also need "stirring up" to get them active.
Appealing to the lowest common denominator is not worthy as communication. Addressing nonreal issues is not worth promoting as action.
I want to see ANY evidence besides your hand waving that what K-Mart did, if enacted all over the nation, would actually help in any credible manner.
As he pointed out repeatedly, other cultures that share some similar aspects with American culture don't have these problems.
***looks around***
Are you talking to me? You can't be talking to me as you are making my point and acting like it's yours.
The above is why anyone focusing on guns and bullets is being ridiculous, as the actual points of Moore's film should have made... perhaps I should have added "to anyone who watched it, including you."
As far as the doc itself goes, that is why the bullets and Heston scenes were so weak. While dealing with some perhaps peripheral issues of gun violence, his own actual points undercut their relevance to triviality. Which is why I DIDN'T LIKE THOSE SCENES.
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?
Please refrain from detailing the movie for me. I liked it overall and understood what it was saying.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please break down this argument for me:
1) You cannot fill a room with bullets if you don't have the bullets.
Therefore...
2) Limited bullet purchase and bullet tracking will help with issues of gun violence in america.
That is the argument you will have to flesh out if you are going to address the issue seriously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
If you truly believe that that syllogism works with no hidden premises, then it is back to logic class for you.
I'm not going to solve it for you, but I am going to wait until you present it in a real syllogism form before answering any more of YOUR POSTS on that topic, for if you can't get this logic right, there simply is no reason to discuss it with you.
As a hint... What does bullets purchases mean to bullets existing? What does the number of bullets bought have to do with bullets filling a room?
If reducing bullets reduces the ability of people to shoot a whole bunch of other people, what would reducing the availability of bullets do?
Oh my, what poor poor logic skills. You should even be clearer to solving your quandary by noticing the vast equivocation required to make the term "reducing bullets" look like "reducing the availability of bullets".
And let's not forget how vague "people" and "whole bunch of other people" are.
Their bombs didn't go off.
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but some of their bombs most certainly did go off. I believe the planted ones did not, but the ones they tossed did.
I have seen video footage which clearly shows explosions and not just bullets being fired.
And let's pretend all the bombs didn't go off, so what? People DO make bombs all the time which DO go off. My point remains the same and you have not addressed it with that anecdotal (if true) dodge.
Where one of the specific and intended purposes is killing another person?
Knives. If a person buys a bunch of knives is there a greater danger.
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?
Anytime anyone buys anything that can kill someone, I consider what might be the purpose. More of it generally does not add any weight to that curiosity, unless mass amounts are what are required to actually do damage (like radioactive material or biological pathogens).
One bullet will kill a person just as dead as a roomful of bullets. And there simply are no maximum amounts of realistic use of ammo. They don't have dates after which they go bad, so you can stock up in bulk.
And indeed I am curious what a person buying up a whole store of ammo would be doing, if he was planning on a rampage. He is going to fire every kind of gun?
That's why the various FBI agents were reporting it to their superiors.
Should can be used in different ways. Perhaps I should have emphasized SHOULD more so my meaning would have been more clear. I meant people were correct in being more concerned that less of something was being purchased than what was required for regular use.
I would be, too. It's called "deviation from the norm." Deviation below the norm is just as curious as deviation above it.
What's the norm in buying bullets? You have mentioned this "buying out the store phenomenon" yet have given no evidence that it even exists, or that such an action is more within the "norms" of a killer, versus being within the "norm" of someone stocking up for a big shoot (perhaps a competition).
I keep asking for evidence but I only get innuendo.
No, it was hyperbole.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
I use the term emotion-jerking and you say "no it's hyperbole?" You jackass, that is exactly what I was saying. YOU DO NOT GET TO USE YOUR DEFINITION WHEN I AM SPEAKING.
But thanks for backing me up. And I'll repeat, part of Bowling was a condemnation of our b/w thinking and hyperbole when addressing real issues, instead of using substantive discussion... and he wraps up with resorting to hyperbole.
Thanks again... jerk.
It had to do with Heston's inability to see how his statements might lead to certain consequences.
What spin. Moore is not that highbrow, especially with that segment.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
and essentially implied that if Heston wasn't a heartless (or mindless) thug
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it's impossible for Heston to be such a thing?
Thanks for proving my point. While not impossible, it is pretty implausible that Heston is some heartless/mindless thug.
But hey while were at it its not impossible that most gays are shrill, bedhopping, disease carrying, sluts, right?
Yay for propaganda everywhere!
As crash pointed out, you can't huff latex paint.
Let me apologize to huffers everywhere. Apparently you can't get high on latex paint. So let's change it to thinner instead. So the more you buy the more likely it is to be used for huffing?
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.
What does this have to do with answering my question? People over 18 can get high just as much as kids.
Although I suppose it does raise a new question. Since graffiti is rampant, should we limit sales of spraypaint? Does greater purchase of spraypaint suggest huffing or tagging (by those over 18) are the likely purpose?
REMEMBER: before I will address any of your comments concerning the utility of limiting bullet sales, I REQUIRE:
1) You complete the syllogism relating limitation of bullet sales to reduction of bullets being sprayed into rooms.
2) Evidence that onetime large sales of bullets are linked to a higher probability they will be used in murders.
This message has been edited by holmes, 07-14-2004 08:02 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Rrhain, posted 07-14-2004 4:19 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Rrhain, posted 07-16-2004 6:13 AM Silent H has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 227 of 304 (124948)
07-16-2004 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Silent H
07-14-2004 9:00 AM


Re: four in one
holmes responds to me:
quote:
quote:
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.
That's funny because ignoring my point is exactly what YOU did in order to raise your own, and used clips from my post as if they were meant discuss the point you were making.
(*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:
And conservatives who are the target of Moore's documentary are a minority of people?
Are you seriously suggesting that any conservative who is the target of Moore's documentary is going to be affected/converted by his method of "personalization"?
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:
And I do. Some people will be unable to consider a position unless forced into it.
Some won't consider a position unless its inside a hardcore porn film, shall we add that to all docs just to make sure we get everyone?
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:
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?
YES.
Then I would say you are horrendously naive.
quote:
quote:
I don't see anybody criticizing O'Reilly or Hannity for using emotion-jerking.
Then you are not watching TV, nor reading my posts.
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:
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.
See this is what I am talking about. I started with my definition and was using it, and you were debating this OTHER definition that you had, and appear to feel it is right for you to hang on to it? Hey, I POSTED FIRST. If you are replying to me then stick with my definition.
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:
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."
Uhm... which is different than Moore how?
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:
Here's a hint: Bowling for Columbine wasn't just about Columbine.
Oh WOW, Rrhain. You just opened my eyes.
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:
I mean you go into shit I wasn't even talking about and so it must mean I didn't understand it either!
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:
To say the segment on bullets was not suggesting it would help prevent tragedies such as Columbine is ridiculous.
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:
Even as a figurative expression, "panacea" means "cure-all."
Uh, no.
Uh, yes.
In your personal lexicon, it may mean something else, but I don't speak your lexicon.
quote:
Who died and made you master of languages?
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:
There is a large difference between a literal cure-all and a figurative use of the phrase "cure-all".
How does "cure-all" not mean "cure-all"? How does "cure-all" mean "no cure but reduces symptoms"?
quote:
quote:
That's a palliative.
No, it is NOT. At least not according to the Mirriam Webster definition.
(*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:
Look, I don't mind expanding my vocabulary, but a palliative is NOT what I was describing. If you think it is then that simply shows you don't know what I was saying.
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:
If it were a panacea, then all you would need to do is bullet tracing and all gun crime would go away.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh... through a deterrent effect, as tracing gets so good no one would dare.
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:
Of course that won't actually happen but it is the FEELING that come with such FEEL GOOD legislation. FIGURATIVE PANACEA.
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:
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.
Agreed. And since prohibition has never stopped a market from existing in anything, and people can make and alter their own weapons and ammo, I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks making guns illegal, or bullet tracing will actually help stop gun violence, or actually track murderers.
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:
Or should I say, it COULD help track them, but not much better than regular forensic work, and for the cost of a much greater bureacracy. That adds up to not worth it.
So you're arguing about cost, not concept.
Why didn't you say that in the first place?
quote:
quote:
It was meant to stir up the audience and get them to do something so that other vendors get on the wagon.
So instead of dealing with the issue of b/w thinking and hyperbole in dealing with issues, we will STIR UP a bunch of people so they can go and harass people on the fringe of a problem?
See, this is why I am of the opinion that you missed the entire point of the movie.
quote:
quote:
As he pointed out repeatedly, other cultures that share some similar aspects with American culture don't have these problems.
***looks around***
Are you talking to me? You can't be talking to me as you are making my point and acting like it's yours.
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:
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?
Please refrain from detailing the movie for me. I liked it overall and understood what it was saying.
Given your comments, apparently not. You got some of it but not all of it.
quote:
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.
If you truly believe that that syllogism works with no hidden premises, then it is back to logic class for you.
I'm not going to solve it for you,
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:
but I am going to wait until you present it in a real syllogism form
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 P
E: 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:
As a hint... What does bullets purchases mean to bullets existing?
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 bought have to do with bullets filling a room?
What does the number of bullets available have to do with bullets filling a room?
quote:
quote:
If reducing bullets reduces the ability of people to shoot a whole bunch of other people, what would reducing the availability of bullets do?
Oh my, what poor poor logic skills. You should even be clearer to solving your quandary by noticing the vast equivocation required to make the term "reducing bullets" look like "reducing the availability of bullets".
And let's not forget how vague "people" and "whole bunch of other people" are.
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:
Their bombs didn't go off.
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but some of their bombs most certainly did go off.
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:
And let's pretend all the bombs didn't go off, so what? People DO make bombs all the time which DO go off.
How many people are killed each year from bombs?
How many people are killed each year from bullets?
quote:
My point remains the same and you have not addressed it with that anecdotal (if true) dodge.
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:
Where one of the specific and intended purposes is killing another person?
Knives.
...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:
If a person buys a bunch of knives is there a greater danger.
Depending upon the number and type, yes.
quote:
quote:
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?
Anytime anyone buys anything that can kill someone,
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:
One bullet will kill a person just as dead as a roomful of bullets.
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:
And indeed I am curious what a person buying up a whole store of ammo would be doing, if he was planning on a rampage. He is going to fire every kind of gun?
Why do you think the BATF wanted to talk to David Koresh?
quote:
quote:
I would be, too. It's called "deviation from the norm." Deviation below the norm is just as curious as deviation above it.
What's the norm in buying bullets?
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 have mentioned this "buying out the store phenomenon" yet have given no evidence that it even exists,
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:
No, it was hyperbole.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
See...now you're starting to get it. Hyperbole is often used in humor.
quote:
I use the term emotion-jerking and you say "no it's hyperbole?"
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:
You jackass, that is exactly what I was saying.
But emotion-jerking isn't hyperbole.
quote:
YOU DO NOT GET TO USE YOUR DEFINITION WHEN I AM SPEAKING.
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 I'll repeat, part of Bowling was a condemnation of our b/w thinking and hyperbole when addressing real issues, instead of using substantive discussion... and he wraps up with resorting to hyperbole.
And irony and sarcasm mean nothing to you?
See, this is why I claim you missed the point of the movie.
quote:
quote:
quote:
and essentially implied that if Heston wasn't a heartless (or mindless) thug
And it's impossible for Heston to be such a thing?
Thanks for proving my point.
Your point was that Heston is a heartless (or mindless) thug?
quote:
While not impossible, it is pretty implausible that Heston is some heartless/mindless thug.
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:
So let's change it to thinner instead. So the more you buy the more likely it is to be used for huffing?
If you go well beyond the norm, one wonders what you're going to do with it. It's flammable, after all.
quote:
quote:
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.
What does this have to do with answering my question?
That the circumstances surrounding what would otherwise be an innocuous activity can convert it into a suspicious activity.
quote:
People over 18 can get high just as much as kids.
Um, tagging has nothing to do with getting high in and of itself.
quote:
Although I suppose it does raise a new question. Since graffiti is rampant, should we limit sales of spraypaint?
That's what I just said: In some areas, tagging is rampant and limits have been imposed on the sale of spray paint.
quote:
Does greater purchase of spraypaint suggest huffing or tagging (by those over 18) are the likely purpose?
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:
REMEMBER: before I will address any of your comments concerning the utility of limiting bullet sales, I REQUIRE:
1) You complete the syllogism relating limitation of bullet sales to reduction of bullets being sprayed into rooms.
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:
2) Evidence that onetime large sales of bullets are linked to a higher probability they will be used in murders.
That isn't my argument. Instead, I am defending Moore's presentation of that argument.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Silent H, posted 07-14-2004 9:00 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Silent H, posted 07-16-2004 10:26 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 229 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-16-2004 1:37 PM Rrhain has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 228 of 304 (124973)
07-16-2004 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Rrhain
07-16-2004 6:13 AM


Answering any of your posts normally leaves me feeling ill. You show about 0 ability to understand what I am actually saying, and certainly 0 willingness to try. Instead you seem more interested in engaging in some monologue, where you hatchet my post, at best quote mining in order to make it look like I am saying what you are addressing.
In this case I am about mortified. This was one of your worst posts ever, with plenty of evidence of what little regard you have for actually having an honest debate. As I finished writing... I mean the very last period... my browser cut out. I lost everything (including the last two hours of my life).
I just do not have the stomach to go back through it all. But I will briefly outline the important points...
1) "Emotion-jerking" is not a real word. It took unbelievable balls to tell me my use of it was wrong. If it is in some dictionary that you have then I apologize, But it is in none of mine and as far as I knew I had made it up for this thread. I certainly defined it before you, and so had a right to use it as I defined it.
You can have the word if you want ya jerk. I will now use "misleading emotional cueing" (aka MEC). Then you can continue to talk about EJ and I'll ignore you because that (as you defined it) wasn't what I was talking about.
2) My use of "panacea" was appropriate, and should have been understandable to anyone whose lexicon has the capability of expanding to accomodate real communication. The way I used it was not "palliative" and yoru instance that that is what I was meaning just shows you didn't know what I was saying.
As it stands I already suggested an even more appropriate word (placebo), which you have ignored in order to continue your asinine argument. If you cannot recognize that Panacea can be and has been used in speech (when figurative, and not literal) to mean placebo-like, then you are the one having the problems.
That is something that feels good (like it is a cure all), even if it is not meant to be, and never would be.
3) Bullet registration and limited sales are a placebo. Such laws make people feel good, like they have taken something that will help, but do not deliver the results necessary to justify the costs.
4) You were correct that your argument was a propositional logical statement and NOT a syllogism. I was being lazy and figured you knew what I meant, since I had started it all with a joke describing Chris Rock's "philosophizing" as a "sillyogism". But to all those concerned, Rrhain did peg the correct philosophical terminology.
5) Pegging correct Philosophical terminology does not mean one actually has skills in logic, and you have proven this with your argument (or in defending Moore's argument). I would argue getting logic down is a bit more important than the terminology.
You were wrong to think that an argument stands as logically valid, until someone proves otherwise. It is valid or not all on its own. The only thing you can say is that it is not proven wrong in this particular debate... indeed, it doesn't even have the distinction of being challenged.
You see I wasn't bothering to challenge it. It was so poorly put together that anyone with basic logic skills should be able to see the problems. Given my history of having no useful communication with you, I don't feel it is even worth my time to SHOW YOU what is wrong.
Instead I am going to wait until you show me you have some skills in logic, or an interest in communicating, before discussing this argument any further WITH YOU.
You can think this means I don't have the answers, and that you "won". But you would be wrong. What it means is I have no interest in talking to you.
As it was I gave you some hints and instead of addressing them in context with your statement, you treated them (as always) out of that context and as things to debate. This continues to demonstrate your commitment to monologue instead of dialogue.
Well here's another hint. One premise involves a vastly different scale or scope than the other. To connect them, by NECESSITY, you need more premises (the hidden premises). And this is where the problems begin.
Ignore this or not. Until you can get this right, I will be ignoring YOU (on that subject).
I mean what the hell do I care about talking with a guy that hijacks my phrases, pulls almost all of my statements out of context in order to talk to himself, and acts as if he has the "right" experiences, ON TOP of displaying poor logic skills?
6) In addition, you have dodged your responsibility to provide evidence necessary to make your claim (or defend Moore's). I won't even begin to feel guilty about not solving your logic problems for everyone else, until you start coming up with the evidence I asked for long ago.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Rrhain, posted 07-16-2004 6:13 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2004 5:33 AM Silent H has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 229 of 304 (125024)
07-16-2004 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Rrhain
07-16-2004 6:13 AM


Chopped up by quotes
I wonder what message 227 would be like if it were not so chopped up by quotations, and quotations in quotations?
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Rrhain, posted 07-16-2004 6:13 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2004 5:36 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 230 of 304 (125234)
07-17-2004 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Silent H
07-16-2004 10:26 AM


holmes responds to me....well, no, he doesn't. He seems to think that "ya jerk" is an actual response.
quote:
"Emotion-jerking" is not a real word.
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:
As it stands I already suggested an even more appropriate word (placebo),
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:
If you cannot recognize that Panacea can be and has been used in speech (when figurative, and not literal) to mean placebo-like
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:
You were correct that your argument was a propositional logical statement and NOT a syllogism. I was being lazy and figured you knew what I meant
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:
But to all those concerned, Rrhain did peg the correct philosophical terminology.
So will you explain where it's going wrong?
quote:
I would argue getting logic down is a bit more important than the terminology.
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:
You were wrong to think that an argument stands as logically valid, until someone proves otherwise.
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:
In addition, you have dodged your responsibility to provide evidence necessary to make your claim (or defend Moore's).
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Silent H, posted 07-16-2004 10:26 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Primordial Egg, posted 07-17-2004 6:40 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 233 by Silent H, posted 07-17-2004 6:57 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 231 of 304 (125235)
07-17-2004 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Adminnemooseus
07-16-2004 1:37 PM


Re: Chopped up by quotes
Adminnemooseus responds to me:
quote:
I wonder what message 227 would be like if it were not so chopped up by quotations, and quotations in quotations?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-16-2004 1:37 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Silent H, posted 07-17-2004 7:35 AM Rrhain has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 304 (125238)
07-17-2004 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Rrhain
07-17-2004 5:33 AM


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?
Whilst I'm still open minded about the conclusion you draw here, I'm not sure one necessarily follows directly from the other - at least not in the way stated.
I agree that if you don't have the bullets, you can't fill a room with bullets. That suggests to me that if one were to plot gun-related deaths vs bullet sales, one of the points would be at or near the origin (probably not exactly at the origin as there would still be some gun deaths from imported bullets).
You don't however know how the relationship varies until you get to the current data point i.e the relationship might now be relatively insensitive to changes in bullet sales. It may even be (I don't know) that the gun deaths actually rise with falling bullet sales, at least for small changes in sales.
What we can say with relative certainty is that if we decrease bullet sales by enough, then we'll reduce gun deaths. The question, I suppose, is whether we can achieve that "enough" purely by limiting over the counter sales, or whether something altogether more drastic is required.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2004 5:33 AM Rrhain has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 233 of 304 (125239)
07-17-2004 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Rrhain
07-17-2004 5:33 AM


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.
Wow, now you're going to tell me where a term, which I made up for the purposes of this thread, and defined for use in this thread, came from?
Granted I was thinking of using something similar to tear-jerking, but not as a direct descendent as it meant something different... which I defined.
Until you show me where to find emotion-jerking you're not even going to get an apology out of me for accidentally using a real word (or phrase). And until then, I certainly did coin it (for what I thought would be "convenience" in this thread) and your pretending otherwise is just being a jerk.
Ya jerk.
At this point I am using MEC, just so jerks like you can't suddenly decide to pretend I am using some well known phrase that has this obvious definition (despite my having defined it).
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."
Uhmmmm, it can mean something other than a literal cure-all, and has been used that way. Maybe it's a regional thing like bubbler vs water fountain? All I know is that it has been used in this way where the context explains quite well it is not meant literally.
You can continue pretending you are the definition police and so you were somehow "confused", but that is either a game or a mental defect. I refuse to play that game, and will point out your instance that I meant palliative which was wholly not what I was saying (figuratively or other), even after I explained what I was saying, means you have some issues in listening to others.
Now, something can be pushed as a panacea when it is actually a placebo, but the two cannot actually exist in the same object.
Clap clap clap. And indeed things can simply be pushed (using emotional reasoning) to FEEL like a panacea, when it is actually a placebo.
For example, Bush sold the Iraq War on the feeling that Iraq was somehow tied to 911. He knew it didn't, and he would repeat he never said that it was when called on it. Then seconds later he'd lace his language to make it FEEL it must have been and so attacking Iraq was somehow dealing with those behind 9-11.
My entire argument was about making emotional arguments, specifically by tying incorrect emotions to a subject. Bullet registration is made to FEEL like a panacea.
If you were being lazy, why did you demand that I put the argument in "proper terms"
Holy shit, does this mean another definition scrap?
I already detailed what I wanted. You need to fill out the argument with all premises, including hidden premises, in order to make it logically valid. As it stands now the "terms" are not "proper" as they do not connect logically.
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?
You go back to the drawing board and look it over. Or maybe you contact a friend who knows philosophy to break down your argument.
Well, I ain't a friend (oh my god ain't ain't a word, are you lost at this point?), but here's another hint.
If YOU don't have enough potatoes, YOU can't make a potato pancake.
Limiting the (I might add "one time") sale of potatoes will reduce the supply of potatoes, therefore there will be fewer dining tables with potato pancakes served.
What's funny is I think I would have caught that even before going into philosophy. There is such a major disconnect between the specific and the general "terms" that it just doesn't hold, and as it is there are presumptions (which I just pointed up with another hint) which must be dealt with.
I made a logically valid argument.
No. You simply made one with a correct looking structure (to you). You have already guessed correctly that some of the problem lies in A1=/=A2. And B2 is not directly implied by A2.
And I admit right here that I screwed up and used "syllogism." You got me going and I fell for it.
You mean you just rolled with it (like I had also done). We knew what we were talking about so what's the difference, keep moving. That is communication.
You aren't arguing against the structure, you are arguing against the example.
Exactly. You just didn't understand what I was saying. You said until I point out problems then it stands as logically valid. I was addressing that. It does not stand as logically valid, just because it has not been addressed. While it can be said that it has not been refuted, that is a MAJOR difference from being valid.
Your statement IS wrong. I KNOW it is wrong. And it is the "terms" within, which logically necessitate more premises to link them (hidden premises), that are the source of your problem... not the fact that you managed to put the ones you did list in a form which looks like "if A then B, A therefore B".
I think this will be the last help I give you. Sink or swim. You certainly have been given enough hints. If you can't figure it out, then get some help.
Or can you admit when you need help?
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.
What a white wash. Hey bud, he gave no reason beyond emotional reasoning (and Chris Rock philosophizing) that it would have any effect. There is to my knowledge NO link between amount of bullets purchased at one time, and a higher criminal use.
That is, at the very least, what should have been provided. Yet it falls when one looks at the argument being built up within the film.
Not only was it wrong, but it was presented in an inappropriate way.
In addition, since it seemed you were supporting such actions, I was asking YOU for some evidence. That would be necessary to tie that logical argument to the real world.
Are you now saying you don't believe in this argument after all? Sheeeesh.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2004 5:33 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2004 2:09 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 234 of 304 (125244)
07-17-2004 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Rrhain
07-17-2004 5:36 AM


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.
Actually your post was great in showing how you do NOT address what I was saying. That was in my longer (accidentally deleted) reply.
You dismiss the possibilities WRITING and specifically WRITING IN A FORUM avail you in communicating.
That is you can read an entire paragraph to know what one is speaking about before replying, or if one does reply to sentences at a time, one can go back and ERASE erroneous replies when the next sentence answers your oh so witty remark.
Heheh, kind of you can't see the paragraph for the sentences.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2004 5:36 AM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 235 of 304 (125575)
07-19-2004 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Silent H
07-17-2004 6:57 AM


holmes responds to me:
quote:
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.
Wow, now you're going to tell me where a term, which I made up for the purposes of this thread, and defined for use in this thread, came from?
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:
Granted I was thinking of using something similar to tear-jerking, but not as a direct descendent as it meant something different... which I defined.
But only afterward. You used a term that I already understood to mean something having encountered it many other places.
quote:
Until you show me where to find emotion-jerking you're not even going to get an apology out of me for accidentally using a real word (or phrase).
(*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:
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."
Uhmmmm, it can mean something other than a literal cure-all, and has been used that way.
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:
I refuse to play that game, and will point out your instance that I meant palliative
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:
Now, something can be pushed as a panacea when it is actually a placebo, but the two cannot actually exist in the same object.
Clap clap clap. And indeed things can simply be pushed (using emotional reasoning) to FEEL like a panacea, when it is actually a placebo.
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:
If you were being lazy, why did you demand that I put the argument in "proper terms"
Holy shit, does this mean another definition scrap?
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:
I already detailed what I wanted.
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:
You go back to the drawing board and look it over. Or maybe you contact a friend who knows philosophy to break down your argument.
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:
And I admit right here that I screwed up and used "syllogism." You got me going and I fell for it.
You mean you just rolled with it (like I had also done).
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:
We knew what we were talking about so what's the difference, keep moving. That is communication.
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:
You aren't arguing against the structure, you are arguing against the example.
Exactly.
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:
You said until I point out problems then it stands as logically valid.
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:
Your statement IS wrong. I KNOW it is wrong.
Then explain it. We're all waiting. The format was put forward for you, so please detail the specific problems.
quote:
And it is the "terms" within, which logically necessitate more premises to link them (hidden premises)
Such as....? What are these "hidden premises"? Be specific.
We're waiting.
quote:
Are you now saying you don't believe in this argument after all? Sheeeesh.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Silent H, posted 07-17-2004 6:57 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Silent H, posted 07-19-2004 7:00 AM Rrhain has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 236 of 304 (125622)
07-19-2004 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Rrhain
07-19-2004 2:09 AM


Did you bother to do any research on this before you responded?
Yes, and there is no official definition of emotion-jerking.
I never said no one had ever used those two words together before, just that it is not in any dictionary I have and I had never seen it used. Thus I created that term for use in this thread.
In addition, I defined what I meant. That was just in case anyone might take it to mean something else.... maybe THEY had used it before. It doesn't seem so clever to put those words next to each other for any reason.
So there was absolutely no call for pretending you had some "right" definition and I had some "wrong" definition... which is what you said by the way... there is NO standard or official definition.
You ready to move on yet? I'm using MEC, and have been for two posts now.
But only afterward. You used a term that I already understood to mean something having encountered it many other places.
No. Before I first used it I did define it through description... that is in the context of the post it was introduced. It is true that I did not officially say something like "which I define as", until after I realized that you didn't seem to be addressing the same meaning. That was to help us move on, in case there was some confusion.
Instead you pull out an argument that I don't get to use that definition, it is "wrong", and continue to act as if that meant ANY of your arguments made sense (much less addressed what I was saying).
What I really love is that to support your bizarre claim that emotion-jerking is defined as X, you defy your own common practice of limiting all word usage to dictionary definitions and give anecdotal uses.
And then after that, move on to your other argument to say that Panacea can't mean how I used it... because of the dictionary.
Make up your mind pal. Dictionary or not? Accepting use as valid or not? Willing to communicate or NOT?
It was a question, remember?
It started as a question, that is why I said "REPEATED INSISTANCE". After your first suggestion, I said no, and then you kept coming back to it.
Wow, is this really how far YOU need to go before YOU say "oops I made a mistake."?
Or more importantly, as it is the only thing that was part of this thread, is this really how far YOU have to go before admitting that Moore is human and made some mistakes?
Where does one get the impression that you were talking about this being pushed as a panacea?
From the context. If someone is obviously criticizing a policy which is being discussed as BEING PUSHED for being ineffective, when they use PANACEA, it means something different than a cure-all. Like I said, you seem to have an inability to see a paragraph (or argument) for the sentences... or even words.
Context can mean so much. British humor must demolish you.
You said "syllogism." You meant "syllogism." You wouldn't have demanded that I put the argument in "proper form"
Hahahahahahahaha... No, really, hahahahahahahahaha.
Because you SAY so, I just must have. And look at all that PROOF. I said proper FORM, and since syllogism's have a FORM I must have meant that.
Hahahahahahhahahaha.
Okay, listen very carefully rrhain... I have a degree in Philosophy... indeed my main focus was on argumentation/logic. I know what a "proper" syllogism is and I know the proper terminology for all the rest (and for those I cannot remember, I can look up).
Your attempt to try and play yourself as Al Franken to my O'Reilly (yeah I saw the video too) is simply foolish. I have no problem with admitting my mistakes, especially with use of terms. Sometimes I have a problem (when writing quickly) of using overly generic terms (pronouns), as well as just being lazy and sticking with something if I figure we both know what it means.
I will REMIND YOU, that I started with the "sillyogism". I was just rolling with that and continued to use "syllogism" because I didn't think it was necessary to use absolutely precise philosophical terminology. I did not realize your mind would fall apart.
IMMEDIATELY, after you mentioned the correct terminology I said that you were correct, explained my improper usage (admitting it was improper), and reinforced your point for any kiddies reading so they wouldn't make a mistake.
I am so sick of your condescencion rrhain. You talk like you know it all, even when you are talking about what another person thinks and means. You continue to do so even when you have been shown to be wrong, and worse still when it no longer serves any purpose but to dodge real arguments.
Is there a reason to continue talking with you rrhain? Is there? Or should I just let you continue building strawmen, and putting words in my mouth, so you can continue your monologue in peace?
It was a propositional logic statement, and it had already been put in formal form.
That's why I said proper, not formal. Proper form would have all premises showing, which is what I pretty clearly explained I wanted from you.
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're right it didn't matter what word I used, that's why I didn't dig in my heels on anything. The very next post I said you were right about terminology. I explained why I had used it, and knocked you for bothering to make it such a big issue, but I totally admitted you were right and that I had made an error (calling myself lazy even).
See the above garbage is what you've been doing. Pretending you are actually telling the truth... catching me in some lie... because that's about the only way you can make your position look good.
You failed to defend Moore's case, both logically and with evidence. Now all you got is "liar liar pants on fire".
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.
Your BS machine is running hot and heavy today. How could you give me PRECISELY what I asked for, referring to the phrase "proper form", when everything around it had put that phrase in a more precise context. I said you had missing premises (hidden premises) and they had to be revealed.
Where are they? If you gave me PRECISELY what I wanted, where are they?
Oh yeah, because I used "proper form" which is so close to "formal form" you just couldn't understand anything else I said...
Dry up and blow away.
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?
Hahahahahahaha. I already told you I don't have any responsibility to you, regarding your argument at all. It is a bad argument, and I am using your interest in actually correcting it yourself as a sign of whether you give a damn at all, or if you are really content to rest in any port in a storm.
You see, you dig all over the place for those definitional thingies (which mean nothing), yet appear to have no interest in asking for help from someone on your logic.
In addition you continue to lie and objuscate. You pretend I don't try and suggest what is wrong when I have in every single post. I think it's hilarious that you say this when in each of my posts I say "here's a hint".
Man I am not only on the plate, I am not hesitating. I'm waiting for you to play ball.
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.
Once again, it is NOT my job. Sure it stands unrebutted. That is certainly true. Well someone else has now chimed in with a comment that you are missing something, but for sake of argument I'll say it stands unrebutted.
But unrebutted is not "standing". It is sitting there as lame as it was when it was shat on the table.
In my opinion it is so bad, and reveals such a desire on your part not to actually look at what you say, that I don't care WHAT YOU THINK.
And given our history. my inclination to help you out (just to be nice), is nil.
Oh I don't mind giving hints, but you'll have to clean up your own mess. Or get someone else to do so.
We're all waiting.
Who is we? You are a plural now? There has already been one other post doubting the legitimacy of your logic.
No, I'm not impressed with you and your "crowd" rrhain. A bunch of paper tigers are still the same to me.
But if you do have some real people behind you, maybe you should ask them for some help. Or maybe you should ask them to post in defense of your position.
If I really thought that most people believed that your position was valid, I would definitely say something.
This started with you complaining about Moore's treatment of Heston.
Yes, you now feel it necessary to remind me of my own posts. Well, not exactly as you don't seem to remember I was complaining about the segments on the bullet manufacturers and Heston.
It was the segment on bullet manufacturers which brought us to an argument regarding bullets.
And as a reminder, each of my previous posts included a hint regarding how to solve your logic problem. The potato pancake one should really have cracked it for you. Alas.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2004 2:09 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Rrhain, posted 07-21-2004 5:14 AM Silent H has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 237 of 304 (126181)
07-21-2004 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Silent H
07-19-2004 7:00 AM


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:
Okay, listen very carefully rrhain... I have a degree in Philosophy...
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Silent H, posted 07-19-2004 7:00 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Silent H, posted 07-21-2004 6:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 238 of 304 (126192)
07-21-2004 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Rrhain
07-21-2004 5:14 AM


Nothing but ad hominem commentary from beginning to end.
Wow, not only is this untrue, but is ad hominem itself.
I will sink to that level for only one comment:
Heheh... too late.
Oh, you wanna play the credentialing game.
No. Which just goes to show you don't bother to read, or fail to comprehend just about everything I write.
My statement regarding my degree was not an attempt to say I know more than you, or am better than you. If you had actually read what I was saying, or understood it, then you would have known what I was saying is while you claim to know what I know and what I mean, you are wholly in error.
Your claim was that I MUST have meant syllogism, and that some word usage "proved" to you that that is what I MUST have meant, and really thought I meant.
But that is because you are a self-absorbed prick that pretends to knowledge he does not have, and when necessary alters what I say (usually through editing) or ignores what I say to continue his masturbatory monologues.
In fact, I did know the difference between a syllogism and a propositional statement. As I noted in the very next post... after you pointed out that I had used a wrong term... it was wrong and that I had been lazy. I do not treat these forum writings like professional papers and specific terminology is one of the first things to slide. As long as tems are understood (and I am still at a loss as to why you couldn't understand what I meant) then that is good enough for debate.
These are not dissertations nor presentations to societies of experts in any particular field, they are informal debates on topics which only require specific language on a case by case basis.
This is what I was saying in that section on my having a degree in Philosophy... I know correct terminology, and YOU DO NOT KNOW what I know or what I meant to say.
And what's amazing is that instead of simply accepting my statement that I was wrong, as well as my explanation of why, you decide to play like Ms. Fletcher (aka Angela Lansbury) and "discover clues" that this must NOT BE TRUE. Wooooooooo.
For the third and last time, I was slipping Ms. Fletcher my degree as evidence that it was unlikely that the best explanation was that I did not know the proper terminology. Just as I would assume, now knowing you are a mathematician, if you said binomial instead of polynomial it was more likely an honest mistake, and not a lack of knowledge.
Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?
Didn't say formal. Said proper. But either way, I don't have to answer jack... you do.
You are the one claiming that it doesn't. Therefore, it is your burden to justify it.
No, this is wrong. I have no burden because I never said I was going to challenge it. It is wrong to be sure, but if you or anyone else want to think it is right (because I won't tear it apart explicitly) then be my guest. What it will do is mark how little you care about your own arguments and so how little I care yours.
No, not "hints." You need to actually spit it out.
You said I never even pointed to where the problems are, which was (of course) a lie. Now you say hints aren't enough. Well my boy, that's all you're getting from me. I said to begin with it was incredibly flawed, and not worth my time answering. It stands much better UNANSWERED by me and as an indicator TO ME whether you can clean it up yourself.
We're waiting.
Once again Sybil, there are only one of you.
"We" are not waiting for me. Indeed, the only other person who has posted an opinion on this section of our thread was against you. That would make it "we" waiting for YOU.
Before I will continue debating you on the issue of limiting bullet sales as an effective means for limiting gun violence, YOU carry the burden (to me) of having to clean up your argument.
Where you could start is by making the terms of your statement explicit. For a mathematician, one would think that would be the first thing you'd do. That and my examples should help you realize where you have gone wrong (in that certain premises are missing).
The second is a burden you have been carrying for longer than I have been asking you to clean up your logical argument. You have not presented any data (evidence) to support your position. I... no, wait... WE... hahahahaha... have been waiting for you to do this for some time.
Nice try to dodge the blows, but it ain't working.
This message has been edited by holmes, 07-21-2004 05:39 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Rrhain, posted 07-21-2004 5:14 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2004 4:21 AM Silent H has replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4307 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 239 of 304 (126599)
07-22-2004 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Silent H
07-13-2004 8:19 AM


I happened to have the great misfortune of leaving in the Concord, CA area in the very early ’80. I can tell you at least then, it wasn’t the norm for people to make Meth from scratch (or more common chemicals), nor did I ever have the impression that the makers thought it would be easy. True, this might have been due to the readily available materials they had access to or they simply may have been kitchen chemists (following known drug recipes). Still sometimes the setups were large, I remember one report being a buried tanker car in Danville.
The site you referred to didn’t directly go into what would have been used in before Sudafed. I don’t happen to know when Sudafed was placed on the market. I know it and Actafed were on the market in 1981. I don’t think it was really the prime ingredient used to make meth until after many other OTC were altered or removed. The web site you linked to did mention Benzedrine, which was at least used in inhalers in during at least part of the 70’s if not early 80’s. It rang a bell that I had heard of someone cracking open inhalers to get to the cotton and chemicals inside. I also, remember hearing that some people had used earlier types of developer from photography at some point, I have some strong fixed association of the words Methyl Ethyl Ketone attached to the memory of the developer reference. Perhaps it contained, produced, or was processed into.
I do think prohibition tends to fail in more ways then it succeeds, especially with youth. If all recreational drugs are effectively lumped together and they’re banned from using any of them, then I am not sure that it should be very surprising to expect them to be picky as to which ones they use.
It does seem the ban on the amount of cold medicine one can buy is US wide, i.e. DEA. At least that was what I was told when I couldn’t buy a months supply for my allergies. I am not sure they’re even really taking into account active ingredients. I can’t for instance buy a month’s supply of Loratadine, can that even be turned into a control substance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Silent H, posted 07-13-2004 8:19 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Silent H, posted 07-22-2004 1:42 PM Trae has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 240 of 304 (126617)
07-22-2004 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Trae
07-22-2004 12:55 PM


I was not claiming, nor trying to claim, that most meth is made from scratch. Usually it involves precursors of some kind (that just makes things easier).
What I was trying to show was that Sudafed (well lets say epinephrine/pseudo-epinephrine) is only one possible route to the manufacture of meth and even if fully cutoff as a source, others remain, or new ones can be found.
Thus eliminating precursors does nothing more than alter production time, beginning material, and ultimately street value. I have yet to see any data which shows actual destruction or crippling of a drug racket, except when new alternative drugs become more popular COMBINED with a high price on an old drug.
I'm not sure if there was really a question in your post, or something that I was expected to respond to, but I figured I should try and make my position clear.
Unless you were actually asking me if Loratadine can be turned into something? I don't know off hand, but my guess is if it has a medicinal quality of some kind, it must have some possibility for conversion.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Trae, posted 07-22-2004 12:55 PM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Trae, posted 07-23-2004 4:47 AM Silent H has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024