Jump to content

What does Freedom mean?


philthygeezer

Recommended Posts

  • Members
Welcome, Gurren Lagann. We haven't had a leftist idealogue to kick around in quite some time.

Pretty please, tell someone that it's not your problem that people aren't willing to do the research to prove that your argument is right. Just once.
:D
C7



I'm just pointing out this post in case anyone thinks Crescent Seven has any real place in this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

What, so you know it's an appeal to authority, and you don't give a {censored}? Popular member automatically wins out?


I do not give a {censored} if this guy has in excess of 23 PHDs. In general experts are the people to listen to, but this guy appears to be no expert at debating in a decent matter.

 

 

If you could correctly parse other people's posts, you would be able to tell that I was stating that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but that is a moot point when the content of the posts themselves clearly show that the "authority" is correct.

 

 

This is of course a flat out strawman. Instead of bothering to actually read my post and the reasoning I've given, he ignores it for a bull{censored} feel good HURR JUST CAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM.

 

 

You do a fine job of demonstrating your lack of comprehension right here. You very clearly said in an earlier post "Hate is ok if there is a valid reason" (or "actual good defined reason" in your own words). Then claim that KK is creating a strawman when he re-iterates your position to start his post. It isn't a strawman. That is a direct quote from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I honestly stopped reading here. Even after I lectured you on it you are unable to work past the basic concept that "agreement" and "disagreement" are not what absolutely everything.

 

 

And what exactly are your qualifications to lecture anyone on anything?

 

 

This is the issue - you've never stopped to think
why
tolerant people come off as intolerant to you.

 

 

And you never stopped to think why intolerant people come off as tolerant to you.

 

 

Opinions are not all automatically equal - some have more factual or logical basis than others.

 

 

And from what I have seen, your's have very little or none.

 

 

 

Even for this reason alone, your ideology is inferior. And personal responsibility cannot be assumed.

 

 

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Typical arrogant "I know what's best for all of you fools" liberal attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

f you could correctly parse other people's posts, you would be able to tell that I was stating that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but that is a moot point when the content of the posts themselves clearly show that the "authority" is correct.

 

 

... but his posts aren't correct, at all. They demonstrate 0 reasoning. All he did was shoot out a relatavistic strawman. You're just sticking up for "Your guy".

 

 

You do a fine job of demonstrating your lack of comprehension right here. You very clearly said in an earlier post "Hate is ok if there is a valid reason" (or "actual good defined reason" in your own words). Then claim that KK is creating a strawman when he re-iterates your position to start his post. It isn't a strawman. That is a direct quote from you.

 

 

It's a strawman because it ignores the reasoning given for that. He reduced it to the typical "just because you disagree" - which isn't the case, I did give a standard, and reasoning to back it. He shat out my argument back at me with this element removed, and attacked that. Therefore, Strawman.

 

 

And what exactly are your qualifications to lecture anyone on anything?

 

 

Why do I need qualifications to lecture someone on something, exactly? That's just elitism, which isn't what I'm advocating.

 

 

And you never stopped to think why intolerant people come off as tolerant to you.

 

 

You aren't really disproving my point that conservatives just whack back the arguments that apply to them without even considering context.

 

 

And from what I have seen, your's have very little or none.

 

 

No, they have plenty, you just ignore it. And again, I ignored your post for a very good stated reason - you were unable to grasp the basic concept that arguments can go beyond agreement and disagreement, so it's not the same as you claiming I have no reasoning, or Mr. 60 PhDs' strawmen.

 

 

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Typical arrogant "I know what's best for all of you fools" liberal attitude.

 

 

Where did I say this? It is undoubtedly the conservatives in this thread that have come off by far the most arrogant.

 

Did you even read up on the flaws of the "Noble Savage" ideology? I'm unsure you did. It's not as if they weren't posted in this thread, so I'm not asking you to search to prove my argument for me, the reasoning was posted, and gee willikers, you ignored it.

 

Really, the best point that can be made now is that focusing on disagreement and agreement is stupid, and saying who's doing what because they disagree with who - it's just childish semantics. It just gets in the way of a real argument, which is why I'll never consider Kashue a true intellectual.

 

It's just a loop that goes nowhere. I'm not going to bother responding to any more BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE, because more often than not the person accusing is just as guilty without realising it, and it goes nowhere. It's more important to actually have an intelligent discussion that DOES go somewhere, which I was nearly having with the other dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gurren:

 

1. Every time I see you denigrate a forumite in one of your posts I stop reading what you have to say.

2. Every time I see you denigrate anyone else in one of your posts I stop reading what you have to say.

3. I'm sure things could be put a little more succinctly to get your point across.

 

Please think about it - I'd like to debate, but I can only wade so deep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Gurren:


1. Every time I see you denigrate a forumite in one of your posts I stop reading what you have to say.

2. Every time I see you denigrate anyone else in one of your posts I stop reading what you have to say.

3. I'm sure things could be put a little more succinctly to get your point across.


Please think about it - I'd like to debate, but I can only wade so deep.

 

 

Crescent Seven blasted me as soon as I came into this thread, and I didn't you at him.

 

Also, what you're doing is much worse form than denigrating anyone - it's the style over substance fallacy. I might be criticising or even insulting people, but not without cause, and generally not until they make a patronising or insulting statement to begin with - but again if you're only going by style and not substance, you wouldn't be able to see this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are three types of liberals IMO. The first type are the needy folks who don't realize that their leaders are far more interested in keeping them in their place than actually providing them with the tools to succeed. They are victims, yes, but they are in part responsible because instead of following a path which will help them escape (reading more, playing less, voting the bums out) they keep making the same mistakes over and over. As long as there are others to constantly blame they will continue to fail because real change only comes from within (or the desire to change one's self).
The second ones are leaders who need to keep the first ones in their place so they can maintain their elite positions in society. They'll take federal dollars (ear-marked for improvements) and dole it out to people who will help them get re-elected, while only a small portion of it (if any) actually gets spent on the improvements. It works well for the "connected" and creates more of them, but does little for the poor and even less for those paying the bill. This is the rule in Chicago, where liberals have dominated the political scene for decades to the tune of more murders, less jobs, poorer schools, higher taxes, less freedom, and rampant corruption. There's your model GURREN. You have 48 Alderman here and the giant sucking sound of money leaving the wallets of productive members of society is deafening. Chicago's answer to everything is raising taxes and fees while hiring politically connected MORONS to conduct the city's (and county's) business.
The third type are the ones who suffer from guilt because they are so stupid they actually believe what the second type is saying. They lack common sense and the analytical skills required to see through the lies. They can sound intelligent for a while, until you realize that most of their arguments are based on talking points which never address the root cause of any particular problem. They are basically lazy people who get all their news from headlines and the mass media. They are easily manipulated and have very short memories. Since there are more of them than the first two types, they are the worst of the bunch because without them the second type would lose elections.
I haven't quite figured out if GURRREN is the second or third type yet. He may be a hybrid. He talks alot but he isn't saying anything! Maybe he's an anchorman. Either that or a professor at UIC who's best buds with Bill Ayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

[quote=GURREN LAGANN;32554360}

Why do I need qualifications to lecture someone on something, exactly? That's just elitism, which isn't what I'm advocating.



Because in order to have the standing to "lecture" someone on a subject, you need to at least have the knowlege and experience to back up your bull{censored}. Do they allow Joe the Plumber to lecture students on pre-cambrian architechture? Or Adam Sandler to lecture people on nuclear physics?

that's not elitism, it's actualyl knowing what you are talking about and having the qualifications to prove it. isn't that what you want from anyone raising kids? Qualifications?

You aren't really disproving my point that conservatives just whack back the arguments that apply to them without even considering context.



And you are not proving anything past the fact that you think your ideology is the only valid one and everyone else is stupid, uninformed, and you just know better. you are COMPLETELY intolerant of other peoples views. But hey, that's because you're right though so it's okay. :rolleyes:



No, they have plenty, you just ignore it. And again, I ignored your post for a very good stated reason - you were unable to grasp the basic concept that arguments can go beyond agreement and disagreement, so it's not the same as you claiming I have no reasoning, or Mr. 60 PhDs' strawmen.



No they don't. they are nothing but opinion backed by your blieif in a theory that fits your worldview. where are your facts to rebut things such as the increasing teenage suicide rate, pregnancy rate etc, since we started listening to the liberal thinktank as to how to best raise children? You don't post facts, you post opinion as facts and shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you. Very tolerant of you.

I suppose that your "reasoning" doesn't need to be based in fact though since you feel you have the moral and intellectual high ground. A delusion, but that's your "reasoning".


Where did I say this? It is undoubtedly the conservatives in this thread that have come off by far the most arrogant.



you need a mirror with that dictionary chief. Your entire tenor and argument is that liberals have the facts. Liberals know better. Unfortunately you have posted absolutely nothing to back that up.

Did you even read up on the flaws of the "Noble Savage" ideology? I'm unsure you did. It's not as if they weren't posted in this thread, so I'm not asking you to search to prove my argument for me, the reasoning was posted, and gee willikers, you ignored it.



No. But I will out of curiousity. I have a busy life and it's not a priority to read up on. you are assuming I agree with the Noble Savage ideology, which would be false. I learned about it in college and from what I remember, it's nothing more than a form of racism, which I do not care for whatsoever. But hey, I'm a conservative so I must be a racist, right?


One of these things is not like the other.....one of these things just doesn't beling.......



Really, the best point that can be made now is that focusing on disagreement and agreement is stupid, and saying who's doing what because they disagree with who - it's just childish semantics. It just gets in the way of a real argument, which is why I'll never consider Kashue a true intellectual.



And you a FREE to think and say that all you want. Just as others are FREE to think and say otherwise. Got it figured out yet? :facepalm:


It's just a loop that goes nowhere. I'm not going to bother responding to any more BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE, because more often than not the person accusing is just as guilty without realising it, and it goes nowhere.




Grab that mirror I mentioned.


It's more important to actually have an intelligent discussion that DOES go somewhere, which I was nearly having with the other dude.



No. you were actually having a "lecture" o the moral superiority of liberals vs. conservatives. speech, not a disussion. you can go about your life spewing your nonsense all you want, but no matter how much you believe it, or rationalize it, or insist you are right.....that doesn't make it so. just like it doesn't make someon who would say blacks are inferior to white right. Even if they believe it with every fiber of their being....they, like you....are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Crescent Seven blasted me as soon as I came into this thread, and I didn't you at him.


Also, what you're doing is much worse form than denigrating anyone - it's the style over substance fallacy. I might be criticising or even insulting people, but not without cause, and generally not until they make a patronising or insulting statement to begin with - but again if you're only going by style and not substance, you wouldn't be able to see this.

 

 

you have no substance. only platitudes, opinions, and a mind completely closed to any dissenting viewpont. Pretty obvious for everyone to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

No. you were actually having a "lecture" o the moral superiority of liberals vs. conservatives. speech, not a disussion. you can go about your life spewing your nonsense all you want, but no matter how much you believe it, or rationalize it, or insist you are right.....that doesn't make it so. just like it doesn't make someon who would say blacks are inferior to white right. Even if they believe it with every fiber of their being....they, like you....are wrong.

 

I'm not even sure it's accurate to say he's "wrong" - at this point the subject of the debate has been changed to focus on what amounts to his disrespect and contempt for certain forum members.

 

It's been my experience that without mutual respect, there will always be a certain opposition to "dissenting viewpoints".

 

Certain posters here truly are incapable of being "wrong" or learning something from another point of view.

 

Certain posters here sometimes do come off as smug, arrogant, condescending know-it-alls.

 

C'est la vie, and thank goodness for verbal communication and body language, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Because in order to have the standing to "lecture" someone on a subject, you need to at least have the knowlege and experience to back up your bull{censored}. Do they allow Joe the Plumber to lecture students on pre-cambrian architechture? Or Adam Sandler to lecture people on nuclear physics?

 

 

Oh ho ho. Rich from the guy claiming he knows more than a sociologist.

 

 

isn't that what you want from anyone raising kids? Qualifications?

 

 

My point was that if there is a better way of raising a family, then the average joe is not going to be the person you ask - but someone who actually studies that field.

 

I already made the point that this is not the same thing as flat out elitism, that only people who are experts in a field can even comment.

 

The issue here is that we're talking about things there aren't even true experts for, to begin with - but as far as neuroscience is concenred, yes, the experts most certainly would agree with your Savage Noble argument. Not because I say so, not because I disagree with you, but because that's what the research says.

 

I am not saying I simply disagree with your argument. I am informing you that current research in the field of neuroscience suggests that your model for responsibility and low government interference is most likely incorrect. If you respond to this with a good argument, I'm more than up for debating it. If you respond BAWWW YOU'RE FORCING YOUR OPINION, then I'm not. Science is science.

 

 

No they don't. they are nothing but opinion backed by your blieif in a theory that fits your worldview.

 

 

More JUST YOUR OPINION MAN. This is absolutely pointless. Instead of pitting two arguments against each other, two sets of reasoning, you do this.

 

 

where are your facts to rebut things such as the increasing teenage suicide rate, pregnancy rate etc, since we started listening to the liberal thinktank as to how to best raise children?

 

 

Correlation does not prove causation. If anything it's more often conservative types that are up for sexual exploitation. I don't believe this is a "Lib" or a "Con" issue though What makes you think the average person is following "The Liberal Think Tank", exactly? They are again, average joes just like you, regardless of political views.

 

It is not an issue of strict parenting vs. liberal parenting. It's an issue of GOOD parenting. And there are ways we can study what works and what doesn't - most people aren't even aware of these studies of course.

 

If anything I'd say it's the conservative emphasis on career and working your ass off that keeps parents away from kids.

 

 

You don't post facts, you post opinion as facts and shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you. Very tolerant of you.

 

 

Same bull{censored}! Listen I am not going to respond to any of your posts anymore, certainly not in a remotely friendly. I am stating that the terms for this argument for me to be involved is that you stop putting everything down to disagreement and agreement. I'm trying to give good reasons why it is NOT just because I disagree with someone, and you're just ignoring them for your own childish ones.

 

If you make this accusation one more time, I will not respond to any of your posts, at all or will start to use an equally obnoxious line of reasoning to show you what you're doing. That's not something you can swing around, it's something you have to prove.

 

 

I haven't quite figured out if GURRREN is the second or third type yet. He may be a hybrid. He talks alot but he isn't saying anything! Maybe he's an anchorman. Either that or a professor at UIC who's best buds with Bill Ayers.

 

 

(-_-)\n

Honestly, I'm not meant to insult people but I don't see how there's anything in this post worth respecting, it's all baseless presumptions and slander towards "Liberals". I don't think american conservatives realise how nutty this looks from the outside. What you consider "Liberals" are moderates in other countries. Maybe there are decent well balanced conservatives knocking about, but certainly not here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

you have no substance. only platitudes, opinions, and a mind completely closed to any dissenting viewpont. Pretty obvious for everyone to see.

 

 

If it's so obvious you would be able demonstrate it very clearly indeed, but conveniently you don't feel like it. You are just sliming out of a real argument.

 

Appealing to common sense being fallacious reasoning also isn't an opinion. It is an objective fact that your line of reasoning here, is poor. If it was so obvious, you would demonstrate it. Kashue made the same mistake in an earlier post.

 

As I said, I am not responding to any more accusations of being intolerant of someone's opinion - even if I was, it does not debunk my argument, and I may have a reason for it. You take the points I make and debunk them. That's how a good argument works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Excuse me, but regardless of how educated someone is, does not mean they can waltz into an argument, pick and choose and basically appeal to "common sense", which is fallacious reasoning whether Fred Phelps or Richard Dawkins is doing it. Actually, you came into this thread on perhaps the most smug, vile, condescending post in this thread. It's not that I dislike you because of your "Opinion", I dislike you because you're a goddamn {censored}ty poster.


Academic does not always equate to truly intelligent or intellectual, it merely means that this person is an expert on certain subjects. I wouldn't ask an economist about cognitive theory.


The level of smugness in this thread is amazing - your first post was talking down to me and not giving me a chance in the slightest, automatically writing me off for being left wing whereas I at least had the courtesy to reply, point by point, to right wing reasoning, yet you accuse me of being high and mighty? There is no way in hell you're the good one here.


I have no idea why "rock" musicians tend to be some of the more conservative posters in general online, it's not very rock'n'roll that's for sure. I blame Dave Mustaine.

 

 

I'm not supposed to say the things I used to say to little whiny crybaby liberals anymore. Don't expect any apologies from me.

 

I've read through all of your posts, and your ideas are stupid, your opinions are incorrect, and your attitude is typical. I'm better than you in every way. It's because Jesus loves me and since you hate Jesus, he hates you. You're going to burn in hell, liberal.

C7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If it's so obvious you would be able demonstrate it very clearly indeed, but conveniently you don't feel like it. You are just sliming out of a real argument.


Appealing to common sense being fallacious reasoning also isn't an opinion. It is an objective fact that your line of reasoning here, is poor. If it was so obvious, you would demonstrate it. Kashue made the same mistake in an earlier post.


As I said, I am not responding to any more accusations of being intolerant of someone's opinion - even if I was, it does not debunk my argument, and I may have a reason for it. You take the points I make and debunk them. That's how a good argument works.

 

I think you should restate the argument as it were.

 

It seems that this "discussion" has been infected with less than objective ad-hominems, wouldn't you agree?

 

Also re-read your post: I see a lot of "it's" in there. Try to state your case more clearly and succinctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Oh ho ho. Rich from the guy claiming he knows more than a sociologist.



Really? where did I make this claim? There is a distinct possibility that I do know more about raising a kid than many sociologists though considering I have real life practical experience in this field.


My point was that if there is a better way of raising a family, then the average joe is not going to be the person you ask - but someone who actually studies that field.



How about someone who has actually done it?


I already made the point that this is not the same thing as flat out elitism, that only people who are experts in a field can even comment.



Really. so any of these sociologists you rever that have no children should be immediately dismissed then right?

Are you an expert in the field of conservatism? If not then I guess you can't even comment right?


The issue here is that we're talking about things there aren't even true experts for, to begin with - but as far as neuroscience is concenred, yes, the experts most certainly would agree with your Savage Noble argument. Not because I say so, not because I disagree with you, but because that's what the research says.



And even if they agree with me, that doesn't make them right. Something you fail to realize. I'm sure I could find experts who feel differently with just as high a level of qualifications, on pretty much any subject.


I am not saying I simply disagree with your argument. I am informing you that current research in the field of neuroscience suggests that your model for responsibility and low government interference is most likely incorrect. If you respond to this with a good argument, I'm more than up for debating it. If you respond BAWWW YOU'RE FORCING YOUR OPINION, then I'm not. Science is science.



you must be kidding. First of all the fields of neuroscience and political science are not the same. That's like me saying X% of gas station attendants agree that nuclear power is a bad idea. They are not experts in that field. They are experts at pumping gas. I don't think you would know real science if it bit you on the ass based on this post.


More JUST YOUR OPINION MAN. This is absolutely pointless. Instead of pitting two arguments against each other, two sets of reasoning, you do this.



You HAVE NO REASONING. Only opinion based on selective reasoning from a limited group of so-called "experts". just the ones you agree with though.





It is not an issue of strict parenting vs. liberal parenting. It's an issue of GOOD parenting. And there are ways we can study what works and what doesn't - most people aren't even aware of these studies of course.



Really? have you interviewed "most people" to ascertain this lack of knowlege? what sceintific data do you base this assumption on?

If anything I'd say it's the conservative emphasis on career and working your ass off that keeps parents away from kids.



Another useless assumption. what scientific data do you base this groundless assumption on?




Same bull{censored}! Listen I am not going to respond to any of your posts anymore, certainly not in a remotely friendly. I am stating that the terms for this argument for me to be involved is that you stop putting everything down to disagreement and agreement. I'm trying to give good reasons why it is NOT just because I disagree with someone, and you're just ignoring them for your own childish ones.


If you make this accusation one more time, I will not respond to any of your posts, at all or will start to use an equally obnoxious line of reasoning to show you what you're doing. That's not something you can swing around, it's something you have to prove.



Then {censored}ing leave. you're annoying as hell anyway and have yet to back up any of your bull{censored} with anything of substance. Break everyone's heart and GTFO if you can't handle being called on your bull{censored}. And who the {censored} are YOU to "set the terms" of this argument. you own this forum? your'e in no position to dictate squat francis. All you can manage is "conservatives are bad people because I think they are". Give it up and go back to the kiddie talbe where you belong.


see how that works? the dismissive arrogant attitude?



Honestly, I'm not meant to insult people but I don't see how there's anything in this post worth respecting, it's all baseless presumptions and slander towards "Liberals". I don't think american conservatives realise how nutty this looks from the outside. What you consider "Liberals" are moderates in other countries. Maybe there are decent well balanced conservatives knocking about, but certainly not here.



Yeah, I can't see why anyone would think you are insulting, condescending, arrogant, intolerant or rude. on top of giving baseless arguments and being just plain wrong.

Can't see why. Got figure. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If it's so obvious you would be able demonstrate it very clearly indeed, but conveniently you don't feel like it. You are just sliming out of a real argument.


Appealing to common sense being fallacious reasoning also isn't an opinion. It is an objective fact that your line of reasoning here, is poor. If it was so obvious, you would demonstrate it. Kashue made the same mistake in an earlier post.


As I said, I am not responding to any more accusations of being intolerant of someone's opinion - even if I was, it does not debunk my argument, and I may have a reason for it. You take the points I make and debunk them. That's how a good argument works.

 

 

you haven't given any data to debunk. Only theory and opinion. Kinda hard to debunk something that has no basis. like me asking you to prove there is no god. Go ahead and try. You can't. just like another person can't prove he does exist.

 

You state that I am appealing to common sense as being fallacious. I have not done so whatsoever and you have not demonstrated any common sense to begin with, so again, you are way off base.

 

Actaully try making some points that are not completely opinion based on your own personal political ideology and I will consider debunking them. And you are intolerant of others opinions. You have stated many times and in many ways how conservatives are bad people and intolerant, but refuse to be tolerant of their belief system, only because you don't feel it's valid.

 

know what? no one give 2 {censored}s about your opinion, especially when you paint with a brush as broad as new jersey.

 

You come off as an arrogant intolerant rabid liberal with a hatred for conservatives (which you feel is okay to hate certain groups of people by your own admission if your own morals justify it, just not anyone else) and a way overblown sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority.

 

None of which seem remotely justified from where I sit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...