farenheit 9/11 (the "liberal media", other things relating to film maker Michael Moore)

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Nothing but ad hominem commentary from beginning to end.

---

​

Wow, not only is this untrue, but is ad hominem itself.

---

(*sigh*)And people wonder why I quote so much: Now you tell me: Were those statements arguing for your point, against my point, or against me?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?

---

​

Didn't say formal. Said proper.

---

And the difference is what, precisely?Answer the question:Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

If you claim that an argument is wrong: then you have challenged it by definition. It then becomes your burden to justify your challenge. If you cannot and if the argument is logically valid (which it necessarily is as it follows a valid propositional logic format), then we have no reason to claim it isn't.No, not "hints." You need to actually spit it out.We're waiting.

quote:

---

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.

---

I already did. Weren't you paying attention? Message 219: You got what you asked for, now deal with it.We're waiting.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

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).

---

I never meant to indicate otherwise. I offered the 1981 date, since it had came up as to if Sudafed was a more recent drug to collaborate another post, which by memory gave a date of 1983. That was just backup for the previous claim of at least 20 years. It may have been around much longer, but I have no personal memory of that.I thought one of the points you were attempting to make was that people likely used other readily available substances to make meth before they were using Sudafed. My post was to support that claim. I know that in the past at least two other fairly available sources existed.I could also toss in that I have read about women using diet pills and pep pills though the 50’s if not into the 60’s. I can also add that in the 60’s and early 70 there was a reducing ‘candy’ by the brand of AIDS. Many women were led into speed addiction by their doctors and marketing.I offered the recipe supposition, not to invalidate what you were saying, but to suggest that prior to the internet drugs were made often by ‘kitchen chemists’ using known recipes. I suspect many of them did not know enough chemistry to adapt easily to changes in types of suplies. I remember a specific time of seeing green colored powered and when asking about it, someone mentioned a copper grinding screen had been used. Think biker gang here.While in general I agree with your point on precursors, I can also see that a more complex process or one requiring more knowledge might place certain drug manufacturing out of the reach of some of the less capable. So it might do something. Still, one would have to show that the slack of ‘kitchen chemists’ would not or could not be taken up by other distributors, something I think the history of changes does not support.So while a change in precursors might run some manufacturers out of business, I think we’d both agree that the result of either changing manufacturing or who can manufacture does not guarantee less drug use. If for no other reasons, others may take up the slack, it may enable a new group to manufacture, or even those without access to the drug may simply shift to a different drug.The Loratadine comment was to express my suspicion that the ban was over-reaching and might even include some substances that really weren’t players in the so-called war on drugs. So yes I wondered if there was some odd street drug it could be made into [I’m pasting what I have found below.]. I still haven’t found a source which explains exactly what is banned. Mostly I’m pissed, because it is a limit of three boxes and the store constantly lists two for one sales. I also take two medicines, so I get to make choices like two weeks of this and one week of that. It bugs me because I didn’t have this much trouble with the stuff when it was controlled. Makes one want to become a Libertarian.Loratadine is Claritin.
Loratadine is a white to off-white powder not soluble in water, but very soluble in acetone, alcohol, and chloroform. It has a molecular weight of 382.89, and empirical formula of C22H23ClN2O2; its chemical name is ethyl4-(8-chloro-5,6-dihydro-11H-benzo[5,6]cyclohepta[1,2-b]pyridin-11-ylidene)-1-piperidinecarboxylate.Claritin tablets contain 10 mg micronized loratadine, an antihistamine, to be administered orally. They also contain the following inactive ingredients: Corn starch, lactose, and magnesium stearate.Claritin syrup contains 1 mg/ml micronized loratadine, an antihistamine, to be administered orally. It also contains the following inactive ingredients: Citric acid, artificial flavor, glycerin, propylene glycol, sodium benzoate, sugar, and water. The pH is between 2.5 and 3.1.This message has been edited by Trae, 07-23-2004 03:48 AM

Cool, everything is crystal now. I hope it didn't seem like I was trying to debate you. I just wasn't sure by what you first said, if you got the impression I was making a stronger statement than I had intended.

---

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

????? I didn't say there were no ad hominems at all, nor that I did not lace them throughout. What I said is it was UNTRUE that my post was NOTHING BUT AD HOMINEM (which was your claim). You used that statement as a way to dodge points I made... making your statement pure ad hominem.(*sigh*)People still wonder why you misquote so much. Now this is interesting. In the post where I first asked you to put your argument in proper form, I spent time describing what must be done.Then you feign like I said formal form (in order to support your bizarre tangent that I MUST have meant syllogism). Now you continue to feign ignorance as to what I was talking about.Again, your lexicon must become adaptable to situations, especially when people make explicit what they want.(*sigh*)But if it will help, I'll make it even more explicit...You must break down the argument so that terms are clear (not vague), and and hidden premises made clear. No. If I claim something is wrong then I have made a statement. It may be factual or it may be false, but it is just a statement.Only if I made such a claim in order to debate the point, do I have the burden of backing up my claim.If I made such a claim in order to exlain to you why I am going to ignore you, and supply you with enough clues to get you out of your hole, then I have no obligations at all.For example, if while discussing a certain math problem, some kid came up saying he had the solution because (in part) "2+2=5", one mathematician might say to him, "you have that wrong and it is not worth my time talking to you about this larger problem if your basic math skills are this bad."That does not make 2+2=5 correct, neither does it make the person saying "get lost kid you bother me" deficient in his duties. He was simply stating the kid was wrong and no further discussion would be had on the larger issue until the kid proved he could handle basic math skills.I hope this analogy finally helps you understand the situation.Oh yes, I should add that the kid can then prance around the room yelling how "right" he is and that the mathematician was "wrong" because he didn't bother showing "why" and shirked his duties and that "everyone" was against him. But the mathematician and the others actually discussing the issue can raise a collective (*sigh*) and ignore the brat. Are all these people as collectively stupid as you are? Can I ask when are they going to appear to back you up? Yes. I wish you were. You didn't do anything I required. Not even something simple like defining elements of your argument such as A and B.Hmmmmm... I wonder HOW obvious I can make this for you, and you will still pretend you don't get it?(CENSORED... whoops. I almost gave away the store. Hopefully no one... including you... saw part of my breaking down your argument before I removed it.

​

Look, it isn't worth discussing things with someone when you have to drag them through the basics, like the kid in the example above. If they at least give half an effort that would be somethin, but you don't.

​

There's nothing in it for me.

​

But maybe there COULD BE.

​

Answer this honestly Rrhain: Do you actually believe your argument is sound and that I do not have the ability to rebut it? That I am simply saying there is something wrong but do not know what is wrong with it?) How many times can you say this and have me rebut it, before it dawns on you that you are wrong.Who is we? Who? Right now I'm 2-1 against you. That makes me more of a we than you.Not only are WE WAITING... But WE ARE ALSO LAUGHING AT YOU.This really is a shameful performance Rrhain.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-23-2004 06:26 AM

---

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

Since this is your topic, I’m posting this to you but not at you, Schrafinator.I am a bit at a loss at the defense of Bush’s actions during the second plane crash and the support of him simply sitting there.Here’s the timeline as I understand itBush arrived at the school just before 9 am, he is told by Karl Rove that a commercial airliner had crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Bush enters the school to continue the photo-op. Keep in mind that Bush had been delivered a report on August 6th about Bin Ladin, Terrorists, and highjacking. He had previously been informed that the World Trade Center was a terrorist target.At 9:05 a.m., the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., stepped into the classroom and whispered into the president's right ear, ‘A second plane hit the other tower, and America's under attack.’ David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., After The Attacks: The Events; In Four Days, A National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency, The New York Times, September 16, 2001.[H]e lingered in the room for another six minutes [after being informed of the second plane] [At] 9:12, he abruptly retreated, speaking to Mr. Cheney and New York officials. David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., After The Attacks: The Events;In Four Days, A National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency, The New York Times, September 16, 2001 .Mr. Bush remained in the elementary school for nearly a half an hour after Andy Card whispered in his ear. Michael Kranish, Bush: US To Hunt Down Attackers, Boston Globe, September 11, 2001.Let’s just look at the first part. It would certainly be a reasonable action for a President upon hearing the news of the first crash to simply cancel and return to Air Force One.Still if you want to cut him some slack, at this stage of the game, much is fair game. Maybe he was mistaken and thought it was a small plane, etc.But we have the second plane and a statement ‘A second plane hit the other tower, and America's under attack.’A significant percentage of people seem to be under the impression that Bush’s on camera is to the first plane, this is not the case. He knew about the first plane before he even entered the classroom. He sat there for almost seven minutes after hearing that there was a second attack and after being told that America’s under attack.Here’s my problem. The entire episode just smacks of someone who isn’t leading. He certainly isn’t making himself easy to be spoken to. Obviously any assistants or guards are going to have to think twice or perhaps even gain permission from another person before approaching him in the classroom. He’s effectively thrown up a barrier to communication at a time when time might have been very precious.Remember no one at this time knows the how large is the scope of this attack -- no one knows how many planes may be attacking. Further, no one knows or can know if this action is even limited to planes. No one. What we do know is the Bush is leaving it up to others to inform him, that he certainly isn’t being pro-active about finding out, and that he certainly isn’t managing anything.Of course Bush should not have shouted out, but it is ridiculous to assert that was his only option. He simply could have and should have excused himself. If only to remove himself to the teacher’s lounge. At that point should he —know- that the situation would benefit from his attention, he could even have returned.I am not interested in how many people say he was in shock. I am not interested in how many people in this country say they too were in shock. We know that people handle shock, surprise, and pressure differently. That’s fine. Still, we expect people who handle shock poorly to not take jobs where others depend on them. Plenty of firefighters, police, private citizens, and other government officials got their act together and it is not an unreasonable expectation to expect of a US President.Even more bothersome, since when is it the policy of the US Government that when the country is under attack to not get the president into a secured facility or Air Force One?Does it make sense to anyone that during an attack on the US, that the president is not removed from a published and public venue with all due haste?I think it is outrageous that he remained in a school surrounded by children potentially endangering them.Since he can’t know at this time the scope of the attack, even if Bush feels the government is in good hands, shouldn’t he be placing himself in a situation to be better prepared shouldBush’s job when he’s out of the loop and not in charge and there is an emergency is to get in the best position to resume his duties as soon as he can. He needs to be in a position to give, confirm, or cancel orders in as short time as possible.

quote:

---

After the second plane hit, we knew it was an attack. At that point, our jets were in the air and we were mobilizing to prevent further attacks.

---

If you mean that sometime after, then yes you’re correct. If you are saying that immediately after, I’ve not seen any proof of that anywhere. How much later after the second attack are you saying that jets were mobilized to prevent further attacks?

Just to let you know, I agree with your assessment.I am still baffled at apologists for his actions, as if he could only panic people or sit stock still in that chair. Presidents have left public engagements quicker and for lesser reasons. All it takes is the comment "I'm sorry but something requires my attention right now", or "something important has come up", or "I just received a call I need to take", or etc etc.He could have even left an aide to make a nice excuse to the kids.Nothing had to be dire in his demeanour, but the situation was dire and so demanded a bit more of his attention to reality and less to a child's book.

---

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

holmes (barely) responds to me:

quote:

---

You must break down the argument so that terms are clear (not vague), and and hidden premises made clear.

---

It already is. Where does it need to be broken down more?Be specific. If you cannot or will not do so, then the argument stands as unrefuted. And since it is in a form that is necessarily logically valid, it stands as true.Now, answer the question:Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?

quote:

---

For example, if while discussing a certain math problem, some kid came up saying he had the solution because (in part) "2+2=5", one mathematician might say to him, "you have that wrong and it is not worth my time talking to you about this larger problem if your basic math skills are this bad."

​

That does not make 2+2=5 correct, neither does it make the person saying "get lost kid you bother me" deficient in his duties.

---

Incorrect.It most certainly does make the mathematician derelict. He doesn't need to go into a long rigamorale regarding the foundations of set theory, taking over 60,000 steps to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 (and thus, by extension, 2 + 2 = 4), but he does need to justify his statement if challenged. "Because I say so" is never an argument.It's tedious and tiresome, but it necessarily needs to be done because we are faced with someone who has made an error and doesn't understand why the error has been made. Unless and until that error is explicitly explained for the error that it is, it stands.

quote:

---

Answer this honestly Rrhain: Do you actually believe your argument is sound and that I do not have the ability to rebut it? That I am simply saying there is something wrong but do not know what is wrong with it?

---

Yes.Now, answer the question:Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?We're waiting.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Wrong. I have already mentioned some terms which are too vague, and have said which terms are not the same (within the premises), or do not follow from the others and so require additional premises.I have simply not said explicitly why, or how to fix them.Interestingly enough someone did give one explicit critique and you have ignored it, indeed ignoring it to such an extent that you claim "we" are against me, when I at least have one other person posting on my side. BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!You have GOT to be kidding me. I don't know what planet you live on, but it isn't a real one. For PRACTICAL PURPOSES, one may ALWAYS choose not to deal with an annoyance, specifically a person who claims knowledge which within that claim shows he does not have it.And for PRACTICAL PURPOSES, a person can use a specific lack of knowledge (and the overcoming of that certain lack of knowledge) as the goal an opponent must meet before serious discussion can resume.This can be seen readily on EvC. For example, a creo may state that evo violates the 2nd law. There are plenty of times that evos simply state "that is not true, and stating this shows a lack of knowledge of both theories" and suggest the person go back and hit the books before debate resumes.Most certainly NO ONE must feel trapped to answer everyone who talks to them, or offers bad challenges. That would be absurd.Oh and by the way, if all the above is true, why did you never address the other poster who critiqued your argument? Funny how your rules only stick for others. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You really think you're that smart and I'm that much a liar?It means nothing for me to help you with your failed argument in and of itself. I do not even care that you continually say "we" in order to boost your position without any other merit (and in contrast to the evidence that you are not "we").But if you really believe your argument is so flawless, and I am just pretending at knowing where it's flaws are, then there may be something.Are you willing and able to stick to the results of a bet? If so, I will answer your request IF you agree to a wager beforehand...If you say you have the honor and ability to stick to the results of a bet then I will open a new thread with my challenge.In addition, since you claim the status of "we", I will require a list of all of those standing beside you on this wager.Do you sir, have the GUTS and the HONOR to put your brassballs where your mouth is?This message has been edited by holmes, 07-25-2004 05:45 AM

---

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

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It already is. Where does it need to be broken down more?

---

​

Wrong. I have already mentioned some terms which are too vague, and have said which terms are not the same (within the premises), or do not follow from the others and so require additional premises.

---

So indulge me and tell me what they were again. Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?

quote:

---

quote:

---

It most certainly does make the mathematician derelict.

---

​

You have GOT to be kidding me.

---

Nope.If someone raises an objection, it must be answered. Even if it has been asked and answered a million times before, we're dealing with a new instance. Strange how the teachers who have been teaching the same subject for years don't decide to tell their students, "You're wrong and I don't have time to tell you why...you just are." Instead, they respond to them. And since they've likely heard the same ones every year, they may have pre-compiled information to use or even, if they're good, alter the lesson so as to handle the objection before it gets raised.But, "You're wrong because I say so" is never an answer.

quote:

---

For PRACTICAL PURPOSES, one may ALWAYS choose not to deal with an annoyance

---

Incorrect. For personal purposes, yes. For practical purposes, no. There is a difference between saying, "This is not the time or place to go into it," implying that there is a time and a place to do so and if the parties can agree upon it then such a forum can be devised, and saying, "I refuse to even attempt to get into it."This forum isn't the place for a full-on course instruction to biology. But that fact does not alter the need for such instruction, the desire to see those who are ignorant in biology get such instruction, and assistance in making do with what we have.If for "practical purposes" simply blowing somebody off were sufficient, there'd be no need ever to engage with a creationist and this forum would serve no purpose except to have those who are interested in evolutionary examination discuss things amongst themselves while the creationists were ignored.But instead, people do engage them. They try to teach them. They provide material. They respond to questions.Your attitude of "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" solves nothing.

quote:

---

For example, a creo may state that evo violates the 2nd law. There are plenty of times that evos simply state "that is not true, and stating this shows a lack of knowledge of both theories" and suggest the person go back and hit the books before debate resumes.

---

And they, too, are being derelict. Simply saying, "Nuh-uh," is not an answer.In another forum I participate in, I heard the second law whine so often that I wrote a canned response to it, showing how the second law is derived from first principles and how it has nothing to do with "order" or "information" and thus any claims that evolution violates it are baseless.

quote:

---

Most certainly NO ONE must feel trapped to answer everyone who talks to them, or offers bad challenges. That would be absurd.

---

Incorrect.That would be required.It certainly is tedious to have to respond to the same trivialities over and over again, but if you didn't want to do that then you wouldn't be here. The ones who stick around will hear the same argument coming from the newcomers. What to do?

quote:

---

You really think you're that smart and I'm that much a liar?

---

I have no idea what your motives are. All I know is that I presented a logically valid statement and asked you to justify your claim that the specific example doesn't fit the formal presentation.You have yet to do so.I seem to recall you once saying that you would never respond to me again. You even had the temerity to order me never to respond to your posts again. Well, here I am responding to you and here you are responding to me. Shall we continue the tap dance or will you answer the question?Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?

quote:

---

I do not even care that you continually say "we"

---

It must or you wouldn't keep bringing it up. So answer the question:Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?We're waiting.

quote:

---

Do you sir, have the BALLS and the HONOR to put some money where your mouth is?

---

Dude, I'm sorry about your penis.Now, put that angst aside for a moment and answer the question:Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?We're waiting.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I never said formal, I said proper. I also said what this was. Go back and look.If this is a semantic game to shift the goal posts to a discussion of purely formal logic, and not how your statement fails to have been properly detailed, then let me know.I am also uninterested in your opinion regarding whether I MUST answer you on your terms. I am NOT your teacher, and as I stated I am uninterested in "helping" or "debating" you on a subject GIVEN OUR HISTORY.You are right I said I didn't want to discuss anything with you anymore. I also asked you to leave me out of your replies. You are a dishonest opponent and your posts make me sick to my stomach.But you refuse to leave me alone. This is why I am seeing a reason to answer you on this point (where I'd rather just leave you dangling).Unfortunately it looks like you don't have the guts, just a big mouth.Hell, you even clipped my last post so you didn't have to answer why you didn't answer the other person who criticized your argument... so much for your statement that one MUST answer one's critics.You are such a hypocrite, and now a coward... on top of being wrong.Oh yeah, and still no proof that you have any friends backing you up. Unless you recently joined the borg?Anyhow, you let me know when you get the guts to take a risk on the so called "strength" of your own argument and I will open a thread putting my own balls on the line. Huh? What does this even mean? All I'm doing is upping the stakes of this debate so that it is worth my continuance in it.If you can't handle it, don't blame your fear over my penis.Dude, sorry about your lame argument.

---

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

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So indulge me and tell me what they were again. Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?

---

​

I never said formal, I said proper.

---

And the difference is what? Is not an argument in formal form also in proper form?

quote:

---

I also said what this was. Go back and look.

---

As I said, indulge me and tell me what they were again. I obviously missed it, so take the high ground and tell me what they were again.

quote:

---

But you refuse to leave me alone.

---

Nobody makes you reply, holmes. I do not have any mind control device to force you to make a response. If you don't want to respond, then don't. It really is that simple. I don't respond to Brad even though he has responded directly to me in the past. I don't read Syamsu's posts because I know I will find nothing there I wish to deal with.If thine right eye offends thee, pluck it out.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Dude, I'm sorry about your penis.

---

​

Huh? What does this even mean?

---

(*chuckle*)You ask me if I have the balls...no, wait...let me quote that correctly...you ask me if I have the "BALLS" to do something and you sit there wondering what a response calling into question your masculinity means?It's really simple, holmes: You called me a coward and I responded by calling you a poser who's desperately trying to compensate for something. If you feel it is valid to use a sexual organ of mine as a goad, then you should expect the same in return.You know those guys who ride those jacked up trucks with more shock absorbers per wheel than my entire car has, blaring music as if they were holding a concert for the neighborhood, revving their engines for no reason other than to have it rumble? "Dude, sorry about your penis." It's all bluster and show in order to compensate for some failing.So when presented with another one blustering and puffing in a grand show, one begins to think it's a compensation.So dude, sorry about your penis.

quote:

---

All I'm doing is upping the stakes of this debate

---

By talking about my testicles? Oh, and nice edit on your post to remove your original demand of and changing it to What made you rethink your position? And going from "put your money where your mouth is" to sucking upon my tesicles is "upping the stakes"?Dude, now I'm really sorry about your penis. Have you considered seeing a doctor?Now, answer the question:Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?We're waiting.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

First this... Given my time zone I generally think most people aren't up when I am writing and have a window to change some things if I think something wasn't right.I made the change because I realized I wanted to differentiate between "guts" and "balls" (it takes balls to do something wrong or outlandish, it takes guts to face the conseqeunces), and I wasn't going to ask you for a money wager anyway so why use that term.Thus I made the change to be more clear.Oh yeah, and put your brassballs where your mouth is was not supposed to mean sucking your testicles which I guess if you had any real concept of human language you would know this. I mean did putting your money where you mouth is mean eating money?It means risking something rather than just talking big. Oh I see, like your use of "we" when no one is actually backing you up.But your analogy fails when it comes to what I said. I was suggesting you WOULD be a coward if you weren't willing to stand behind your statement and take on a wager. It seems you are fulfilling that, but at the time I had no way of knowing which way you'd go.Indeed, I hoped you would have the guts (guts is more accurate so I'm sticking with it).You let me know when you are willing to take a wager on whether your argument is good or not. I'm ready to show my hand anytime.Oh yeah, so you can knock off the we're waiting crap. We're still waiting for your evidence. We're still waiting for you to reply to the other critic. And I have already indicated I am ready to give you what you are asking for... I just want it to be worth my while to do so.If you have confidence in your position, or your capability to stick to the results of a wager, this should be no problem.I'm waiting.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-25-2004 04:46 PM

---

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

I have considerable respect for both Holmes and Rrhain. However, I'm not impressed with the tone of the "debate" as it is unfolding right now.There is not reason for the two of you to start to act like Buz (I hope that is shocking enough to get you to pay attention. ).Thanks.

There was a guy at work that always used the "we" (or "our") business when sending E-mails to make arguements or demand action be taken...it was nearly a year before I found out that there was no "we", it was just him. I think sometimes people write and speak in plural in an attempt to fake a credibility that isn't there.The guy at work ended up getting fired.