I've got a confession: I'm not perfect. No, I won't admit to having the sort of genetic defects you people describe as being "human," but even I have made a mistake or two in my time. And I did most recently regarding Obama and his pastor.
You see, while I'm no adherent to the "where there's smoke, there's fire" line of reasoning, which is quite fallacious; I had sort of assumed there was something truly controversial about Obama's pastor. I won't even go for the "heat of the moment" reasoning on this, as if his pastor only said these things without thinking. I know there are some people who have some inherently wacky logic and assumed that Obama's pastor was one of them.
So I didn't want to watch any YouTube clips of him saying these controversial things. Why bother? Guilt by Association is a pile of crap and I failed to see why Obama should be held responsible for what his pastor said. It's obvious Obama doesn't believe these things, so the whole thing was little more than just a smear against him and a blessed distraction for his two opponents (see footnote below). As I suggested before, people thought John Kerry should have been denied communion by his religion for his position on abortion, and no one assumed he needed to stand up against their anti-gay intolerance.
But all the same, I assumed the guy really had said some horrible things which weren't relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? (And yes, that was a Barbara Bush quote.)
Governments Change
Well whaddya know, I was wrong. At least about two of the quotes anyway. I kept hearing about how his pastor had blamed America for 9/11 and had spent all my time insisting that it wasn't relevant to Obama. Apparently, Carpetbagger did the same thing. And then he actually saw the YouTube clip and felt as stupid as I did. Because I agreed with just about everything the guy said. In fact, not only have I been saying the same stuff, but feel that any liberal who isn't saying this stuff doesn't deserve to call themselves a liberal. This stuff is just a no-brainer. He might have put things a little more forcefully than I might have, but that's just a matter of taste.
Carpetbagger's already got the clip of the 9/11 "chickens home to roost" sermon, so you can watch that there. Or watch all the sermons his church posted on YouTube. But I wanted to cover his "God damn America" sermon, which I'll be cool enough to post here, just to show how hip I am.
Now again, I assumed he had some good reason for saying that. But I assumed it was some reason I wouldn't agree with. Some angry holdover from a prior period that normal ears would chafe at. But you know what, I watched the whole clip and not only do I understand what he's talking about, and not only do I think all liberals should understand what he's talking about, I can't see why most conservatives wouldn't understand what he's talking about; at least the religious ones anyway.
His main message is that government's change, but God doesn't. And after spending quite awhile explaining what he meant, he goes into a whole litany of horrible atrocities America has committed, as well as modern grievances. He then explains how the bible says that anyone who acts this way is going against God and is damned by God for treating its citizens as less than human. And while many conservatives might disagree with his specific grievances, most of them will agree that God is supreme to America and that America must obey God's will.
And that's what's odd: As an atheist, I should be more offended by what he says than any religious conservative should be. But I'm not. I'm used to this kind of stuff. Besides, I saw nothing to suggest that he thinks specific laws should be tailored from the bible's teachings; but rather just basic human rights issues. And so I'm cool with that. I'm not anti-religious and think that if religion helps anyone behave better, I'm all for that kind of thing.
And to have read Hillary supporters denounce Obama for his pastor saying these things is just wrong. I know they're desperate to find some way of winning this thing, but I doubt there's anything his pastor said that they didn't agree with, at least partly. And I should add that, were I to go to a church, that'd be a pretty decent church to go to. That was waaay better than the Catholic homilies I used to listen to as a kid. Of course, I'm a lazy SOB and can't imagine I'd go to church even if I were religious. But still, if I was into that kind of thing, his church wouldn't be such a bad place to go at all. If his other sermons are like that one, it'd be like I'd be getting a political blog post half the time anyway. Or I guess that would be a podcast or something.
Glenn Beck Doesn't Support Obama!
And on a final note, I made the mistake of watching a clip of Glenn Beck smearing Obama due to his pastor's words, and let me say: Not only is Beck a complete douchebag, but he's an incompetent douchebag. I won't post a link as I don't want you to make the same digestion-upsetting error I made, but for all his efforts to smear Obama, I can't imagine it having much impact at all. Because first off, his outrage seemed totally fake and overly emphatic; as if he's fully aware the material just wasn't there for him, and could only puff it up manually. It's obvious he just doesn't trust himself to sell the material, and he's a bad actor. Maybe that shit cuts it on radio, but I imagine seeing him spew that bullshit is totally a deal breaker for most people.
But even worse, he kept playing clips of Obama's speech on the matter. And for as much as he emphatically insisted the speech was ineffective and deceptive, people have ears and Obama sounded reasonable. I once heard about how a Reagan person told a TV news person that they loved it when they had negative stories about Reagan which showed Reagan talking, as people were less likely to pay attention to the story and more likely to just like seeing Reagan. And while I don't know if that's true or not with Reagan, I can definitely see that applying to Obama. At best, Beck should have read portions of the speech in that asshole voice of his, which would automatically make people think worse of Obama. But I guess that'd require that Beck understand how pathetically crappy he appears to be.
And his weirdest line of reasoning was that, because people accuse Beck of cherrypicking quotes from the pastor, it makes Obama a hypocrite for having ignored these cherrypicked quotes over the years. That's not exactly how he put it, as he was attempting to accuse Obama of cherrypicking; but that's what he was saying. Yet that's the most egregious abuse of cherrypicking. It's one thing to take a few quotes out of context to smear a guy; but to insist that those few quotes are representative of twenty years of sermons, and that Obama was cherrypicking by not noticing these cherrypicked quotes? That doesn't even make sense. I mean, this isn't even Limbaugh-level nonsense. This was just dumb at a level that makes Beck look entirely foolish.
But the whole performance was bad. Equally bad was that he made the mistake of inviting two black people on the show to discuss it; naturally with the idea that having black people diss Obama legitimizes it. And while neither of them gave a solid defense of Obama, one of them wouldn't join in with the disgust against Obama. Beck kept pestering the guy with one-sided questions which clearly begged for an affirmative answer, but this guy just wasn't having it and was prepared to dispute what Beck was suggesting. I don't know who vets this guy's guests, but whoever it is needs to get better at it. Because the guest sounded somewhat reasonable, while Beck sounded unhinged.
And because Beck's entire anti-Obama schtick was so weak to begin with, he needed all the support he could get. Having someone come out and disagree with him clearly took the wind out of his sails. Again, this guy wasn't defending Obama, but he was more knowledgeable than Beck and, even worse, was clearly aggravating him. But the whole thing was like that. I suppose Beck does have some loyal viewers, but even the two of them must have been scratching their heads over this one. You agreed with Beck if you already agreed with him; but if your level of persuasion is that limited, you really shouldn't bother. I wish someone would explain that to him. I really do.
Footnote: It has been brought to my attention by a loyal commenter that some may take my use of the word “obvious” in the third paragraph to imply some sort of empirical, objective knowledge of Obama’s thought patterns. But I, in fact, have NO ability to read Barack Obama’s mind, or anyone else’s, and was merely expressing my opinion that it was “obvious” that he didn’t agree with his pastor; much as John McCain said that Obama “does not share those views.” But in no way was this meant to sound as if I had conclusive proof of this; as I do not.
I should add that my use of "obvious" to describe Glenn Beck was also an opinion, and that I did not intend to imply that I had any sort of empirical proof that Beck is a bad actor who doesn't trust his material. It's possible he's a great actor who just wants conservatives to look really, really stupid. I can't say for sure.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused my reality-deficient readers who are incapable of distinguishing fact from opinion, and somehow imagined that a statement which could only have been an opinion was otherwise. My apologies.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome to the official home of Doctor Biobrain. We are not currently accepting complaints at this time.
Doctor Biobrain
Where to Find Me
Posts
Biobrain Blog Whores
Bio-Links
The Old Stuff
-
▼
2008
(295)
-
▼
March
(25)
- Screw Abe Lincoln!
- My Recollections of a County Caucus
- The Robot State
- Twisted Truth
- My Obamahood
- Just Say Yes
- Highway to Hell
- Keeping in Touch
- Obama's Pastor
- Crime, Punishment, and Redemption
- Bad Catholic v. Bad Pastor
- Guess What...
- Pro-Pot Justice?
- Arthur Clarke
- Getting Jaked
- Keeping it Simple
- Fair Play for Fairplay?
- Big Government Solutions: Fighting Fires with Gaso...
- Big MoBama
- Hillary Bashing v. Women Bashing
- I Voted!
- Primary Prediction
- Obama Empowerment
- Barack Block Walk
- Fauxbama Impression
-
▼
March
(25)
239 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 239 of 239Nope, you used "obvious" oblivious to the fact that its etiomology demands an external referent,
`I don’t know what you think I mean by “obvious,”‘ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t—till I tell you. You meant “proven by external fact”‘
AmericanHumptyNeoDumptyCon lives... ...and if you don't use "obvious" in the way he thinks you should, he'll whine until his death, apparently...
The rest of his comment (like all of his comments) is just pseudointellectual masturbation...
...but we can no more understand why the couple's smiling than we can know what causes a dog to wag it's tail...
Of course we can. Unless you have Asperger's Syndrome and are physiologically unable to decipher human non-verbal communication. They're smiling because they're happy, you dolt. Now, what we may not necessarily be able to "know" is *why* they're happy. In addition to your many failures to understand the rules of logic, you also have a poor grasp of cause and effect and chains of reaction. They aren't smiling because they're getting married (or because the groom farted). They're happy because they're getting married (presumably, unless you subscribe to the fart theory), and smiling because they're happy. Also, we understand exactly why a dog wags its tail - it's because it's excited. We don't always know exactly what caused the dogs excitement, however. Are you started to get this yet? It's a pretty elementary concept. (Of course, I've already had to resort to elementary explanations of "burden of proof" and the "proof of a negative fallacy," so I'm not really surprised.)
Furthermore, I still don't know why you're quoting me debunking of your entire argument and thinking it somehow bolsters your case. The best source of information about someone else's opinion is, by definition, that person's statements about his opinion. There cannot be any sort of outside "proof" about someone's opinion.
Do you still not understand the difference between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion? Really? Because if I told you, "I like the color blue," how would you propose someone go about "proving" such a statement? We're over 200 comments now, and you've been pressed point-blank on this issue several times, yet you still offer no explanation. How? You're asking for this "proof" of an opinion, and still not saying what you (the Arbitrary Arbiter of Evidence) would accept as "proof." This is just speculation, but I'm fairly confident that you won't answer, and it's because you don't have an answer - you know you're wrong, and are just trying to muddy the waters to hide the shame of your utter failure in this debate.
...I noted that diplomatic historians used statesman's memoirs, cable dispatches, letters, etc., to chronicle the progress of a conflict or history of civil rights.
And, again, what are those being used to "prove?" If they are statements of opinion, they are used to document the writer's opinion. If they are statements of fact, they provide another data point in the evidence list. I know it's hard for you to see the difference, being socially retarded and all, but you're proving Bio's point. A person's account of their own opinion is the best source for documenting their opinion. So, now that you've conceded your point of argumentation, I expect you will drop this senseless argument, yes?
This is not "understanding" Obama's "acts" but assessing your point that there's an "obvious" objective system of evidence to which you refer,...
And, for the umpteenth + 1, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that "obvious" requires the phenomenon in question to be objective. As a reminder, we went round and round, quoting dictionaries, but you had to LIE about the definition, lest your argument evaporate. Remember? Remember how you FAILED to prove that "obvious" had a requirement of "objective?" How you had to "elaborate" (ie, "fabricate," ie LIE) to add "objective" to the definition, after every dictionary we consulted disagreed with you? If you've forgotten, just scroll up and relive your abject failure. It's cathartic.
Instead, you're reduced to calling me an idiot...
Well, if it walks like an idiot and quacks like an idiot...
Why is it obvious what Obama knows?
PER YOUR OWN ADMISSION THAT A PERSON'S CORRESPONDENCE, DISPATCHES, AND STATEMENTS CAN BE USED TO CHRONICLE EVENTS, I GIVE YOU SEN. OBAMA'S STATEMENT:
"The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.
"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."
There's his statement, which you freely admit can be used as a chronicle. YOU LOSE.
I've made the argument to show that you're made an empircal statement...
Nono, remember, you LIED about that, by fabricating definitions. Really, the past is not malleable. At this point, you're lying about your lies.
main rule of digging is when you've dug yourself down into a sh$&#@hole you should stop digging!
I seem to recall that I told you this in the immediately preceding comment. I see a pattern here. You read something interesting, or something is used against you in a debate. Rather than learn from it, you just turn around and spout it off in another debate, regardless of whether or not it's appropriate. In this case, you continue to undermine your position by proving Bio's, and then urge him to stop making things worse for himself. It's like how earlier, you insulted someone and dismissed their argument by accusing them of an ad hominem attack, when that's what you were doing. Classic projection, and a sign of a serious mental disorder.
having accepted the basic definition of obvious...
Wait, which "basic definition?" This one?
obvious adj easily discovered, seen, or understood
The definition that make no mention whatsoever about "objective?" That one? Have you finally accepted it, and dropped this whole "objective" nonsense?
Denial... [snip]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Damn, that's good stuff. Absolutely hilarious. You're working double-time to prove our points for us, aren't you? Well, thanks.
Nope, you used "obvious" oblivious to the fact that its etiomology demands an external referent, while you lamely insist that it can be "understood" subjectively.
What the fuck do you mean by "external referent" [sic]? Is Sen Obama's own statement somehow NOT an external reference? Besides, AN OPINION IS SUBJECTIVE, YOU DOLT! You can't just wish that away, and it consistently leads back to your failure. Sweet Fancy Moses, over 200 comments, each one beating you more and more badly, and you still don't realize that you haven't proven anything in this exchange (other than your own idiocy). You've lost, dozens of times over. Head back to the pasture, goat fucker.
Donald, I hate to do this in the middle of our debate, but I’m really getting a bit confused as to what you’re saying, as your words seem contradictory to me, and I’m sure a non-nihilist like you could never contradict yourself. Which means this error must surely be on my half of the conversation.
So for my edification, could you please answer a few questions to help me gain a better understanding of what you’re saying? I’m sure a debate wiz like you shouldn’t have any problem with any of this, as these are Yes or No questions, though basic elaborations would definitely be helpful. Just be sure to include the “Yes” or “No” at the beginning of each response, or I might stay confused and be forced to ask the question again.
1) When your wife is crying and says it’s because her cat died, is it possible to understand why she’s crying?
2) Can you provide your source that says things can’t be understood subjectively? I’m having trouble with this one, and even have one source that defines it as “to recognize somebody’s character or somebody’s situation, especially in a sympathetic, or empathetic way,” which can’t possibly be right because you’ve said otherwise. So if you could please give me a better source, that’d be great.
3) When Obama stated that he disagreed with his pastor, including when he said “I strongly disagree with many of his political views,” can a “diplomatic historian” use these statements as irrefutable proof to show that Obama didn’t agree with his pastor? Can anyone else use these statements to prove that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor, or is this a unique power of diplomatic historians? Explain.
4) When you said “it's obvious that a hasty retreat from Iraq is not in the nation's or the military's interest,” do you have “external validation” of this? Is it possible to “prove” something that hasn’t happened yet? How?
Oh, and don’t bother responding if you’re not going to answer the questions. I’m just so confused about all this that I won’t even try responding to anything else and will just repeat the questions again. Not that I’m trying to be rude, but after all, I’m just a slimeball rally puke-taster extroadinaire polecat snaggletooth lying obfuscator-general, and just can’t comprehend anything you say until you lay it out for me by answering these questions. I know, I know. I shouldn’t require you to actually state things so explicitly like this, but how else am I supposed to learn? Teach me, professor. Answer the questions.
And hey, this can work both ways. If you have any questions for me, such as “Did you really mean to imply that you can prove that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor?”, perhaps I can help you understand my positions too. But you’ll have to answer my questions first, because I asked first. Or…you can continue to tell me what I was trying to say, in complete disregard to what I’ve explained repeatedly. Your choice.
Oh hey, if it helps, I decided to take your advice and revise my post to make the point on Obama to be more clear; in case there were other readers confused about the difference between facts and opinions and thought I was stating a fact. I frown upon actually changing my posts after the fact, particularly when I don’t think they say anything wrong, but I’ve left a footnote on the post to clarify this position in case anyone else made the same mistake you did. Hope you like it.
So, has the perfesser given up, or does he not realize that the comments have forced a second page?
John - I think it was my questions. They blew the poor professor's fuse. Or perhaps he was thrown off by all my puke tasting.
Still waiting for that concession...
Dr. Biobrain says:
"I decided to take your advice and revise my post to make the point on Obama to be more clear; in case there were other readers confused about the difference between facts and opinions and thought I was stating a fact. I frown upon actually changing my posts after the fact, particularly when I don’t think they say anything wrong, but I’ve left a footnote on the post to clarify this position in case anyone else made the same mistake you did. Hope you like it."
Well, mercy! The obfuscating snaggletooth's seen the light!!
Revising the post is a concession, so is there really any need to continue the debate?
But to respond to your queries:
1) "When your wife is crying and says it’s because her cat died..."
Stop right there! We can't use her statement to confirm her feelings, because opinions are not facts, according to your rules. Your "understand" line's not working too well. You should retract it in your final concession here.
2) "Can you provide your source that says things can’t be understood subjectively?"
I'm not saying things can't be understood subjectively. But for "intersubjectivity" there must be an outside stimulus for both actors to perceive, and if there's confirming opinion on both sides, the recognition is intersubjective, and hence relational iterations can move forward to the next equilibrium. You have referred to Obama's views in the sense of external validity. For your comment to make sense requires an outside referent. You haven't done so, because you can't.
You're correcting your mistakes, though, for example in the appeasement post, so there's hope. But you should fully concede the issue.
3) "When Obama stated that he disagreed with his pastor, including when he said “I strongly disagree with many of his political views,” can a “diplomatic historian” use these statements as irrefutable proof to show that Obama didn’t agree with his pastor?"
Diplomatic historians don't demand irrefutable proof for their studies to be considered valuable and authoritative.
The "opinion versus fact" rule is yours, and while you say that statements can't be used as confirmation or evidence, diplomatic historians use all the data sources I've mentioned as standards of the field. "John" hammered you on this point, and I've posted it ad nauseum. You're going to need to revise your theory of opinion versus objectivity, adding some relaxing assumptions. Even the hardest scientist do so, when they've got no explanatory power, which is your problem.
4) "When you said “it's obvious that a hasty retreat from Iraq is not in the nation's or the military's interest,” do you have “external validation” of this? Is it possible to “prove” something that hasn’t happened yet? How?"
My usages of "obvious" aren't in question. Standard rules of debate put the burden of proof on you. Since I've never entered my own use of "obvious" into debate here, a debate judge would rule against you. You're out of luck on this one, so this is another point for your concession.
And here's the air exiting your balloon:
"I’m just so confused about all this that I won’t even try responding to anything else and will just repeat the questions again."
If you noticed at the thread, I've already answered all of your points before.
Your queries are more evidence of your deceipt. You've got nothing, so you're conceding this debate by papercuts. A little at a time doesn't hurt so much as to just come out and say "I was wrong."
You should just do so altogether, since I know you'd rather debate greedy conservatives or Obama's hopeless diplomacy of no preconditions.
“Seen the light”?!? All I did was write what I’ve been writing the whole time, which is that my statement was an opinion and not empirical. How is that a concession? I’ve been saying it the whole time! As a reminder, you’re the one who was saying that my statement was empirical and needed to be proved, and I’m the one who was saying that my statement “could only have been an opinion.” I used those words repeatedly in my comments.
Of course, you were also saying that I couldn’t prove my statement, which I readily agreed with because my statement was an opinion. And that’s why our real discussion was only on whether or not “obvious” could be applied to opinions; because we both agreed that my statement wasn’t empirical. But again, you were the one who said I made an empirical statement; not me.
As for your responses to my questions, you definitely had trouble answering them, as you didn’t do any of them properly. They were Yes or No questions, yet you didn’t give a Yes or No for any of them. For example, for the first one, you should have written “No, I can’t understand why she’s crying.” I’m not sure what was so difficult about writing Yes or No, but it would have made your statements much more clear.
And because of that, I’m stuck asking follow-up questions to each one of these, because you pretty much avoided answering ANY of them directly:
1. Who said anything about “confirming her feelings”? We were talking about understanding, not confirming. So, if your wife said she was crying because her cat died, would you tell her “I don’t understand why you’re crying because I can’t confirm your feelings”? Is that what you’re saying? Yes or no?
2. This one seemed particularly confusing. Are you saying that a person’s statements aren’t considered an “outside stimulus” which allows us to understand a subjective statement? And if Obama’s statements aren’t considered “outside stimulus” allowing us to understand subjective statements, can you explain what type of “outside stimulus” would allow us to do so?
Besides, I asked if you could name your source on this; not for another meaningless essay from you on the subject. So the answer was “No, I don’t have a source for this besides myself.” Or if you do have a source, you should provide it. That’s what I was asking for.
3. But you have said that statements ARE irrefutable fact. When N=1 said that Bush didn’t care about the troops, you insisted that Bush’s statements proved her wrong. That was the whole point of our discussion. Or are you saying that there are facts which can be used to prove somebody wrong, but which can be refuted? How does that make sense?
But since you didn’t feel you could answer the question, I’ll rewrite it:
Can diplomatic historians use Obama’s statements as a data source to establish that Obama factually disagrees with his pastor? If not, how is this different from other people’s statements?
And just as a reminder, the “fact-opinion” thing isn’t MY rule. There are such things as facts and opinions and they are mutually exclusive. As I’ve said before, they teach this stuff in third grade, so I’m a bit confused as to how an educated man such as yourself failed to learn this lesson yet. But there’s still time. And while I’m honored that you think I invented this rule, I confess that I was taught these rules like everyone else. For that matter, can you explain to me what you think my "opinion versus fact" rule is? This could be good for a few laughs.
4. Donald, in what world are your statements not in question? I’ve brought them up repeatedly and all you’ve done to evade this is to say that you won’t defend them. How is this any different from any of the other examples we’ve used during this discussion?
Answer: Evasion, evasion, evasion. You won’t explain your usage of the word because you can’t, and imagine that your invented rules of debate allow you to do so. But they don’t, and I know you’re just evading the point because it proves you wrong. You’ve proven time and time again that you don’t care about honest debates, and prefer cheap debate tricks over actual answers. You’ve got imaginary debate judges living inside your head and imagine that they support your gimmicks every time you’re forced to evade yet another point.
But if you absolutely refuse to answer this question, I’ll rewrite it as a hypothetical question:
If someone wrote “It's obvious that a hasty retreat from Iraq is not in the nation's or the military's interest,” would you say that was an empirical statement or an opinion statement? Is it possible to prove something that hasn’t happened yet, or is a prediction of the future always an opinion?
And again, this would really help if you wrote “Yes” or “No” at the beginning of your answers, so I can get a clearer idea of what you’re saying. I’m not sure why someone who imagines himself to be reality-based has such a hard time writing clear statements, but your stuff sure is vague and wishy-washy. If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were being intentionally vague to hide the fact that you’re wrong about everything.
And again, if you were smart, you’d ask me questions about what I’m saying, rather than telling me what I’m saying. But I guess that’s a pretty big “if.” Like I’ve said before, you could have saved yourself a lot of time and embarrassment if you had just asked me if I had meant to write that as empirical statement, but instead you insisted on TELLING me that this is what I did, no matter how many times I insisted that this was impossible. But that’s pretty standard for conservatives: They’re so convinced that they’re right that they absolutely refuse to find out if it’s true, and if you weren’t that way, you’d probably be a liberal.
I see the professor finally found the way to the rest of the comments, so as to embarrass himself here a bit more... (Give a guy enough bread crumbs, and he'll continue to make himself choke on 'em, I guess...)
The chances of Nero actually answering those questions clearly & concisely is about slim to none... If he can't obfuscate, he might as well not speak, it seems.
You have more patience than I, Bio... The professor has his invented little world, and come Hell or high water, he's going to continue living in it, facts be damned...
The fact that you posted an update at all is a concession to your sloppy and imprecise attempts at satire (and/or analysis).
But here:
"As for your responses to my questions, you definitely had trouble answering them, as you didn’t do any of them properly."
Well, duh...!
I'm not going to answer in the affirmative to a question that has no valid epistomological basis.
But hey:
"And again, if you were smart, you’d ask me questions about what I’m saying, rather than telling me what I’m saying."
I've had you guys spinning your wheels for over 200 comments, and this is without breaking a sweat.
Just make your final concession and we can move on to other debates, if you're not too exhausted.
I know I'm getty to Reppy, that's for sure:
"Once upon a time I actually thought him reasonable--at the time, I was visiting a wingnut blog that was even more partisan, if you can believe it--but ol' Donnie can exhibit a real nasty streak when you show him up on a topic he fancies himself intelligent enough to discuss. (For a real kick, follow this link: And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: Obama's Pastor. Over 200 comments worth of Nero's obfuscation & pseudo-intellectual masturbation (and we're pretty certain he's not done... ...though he does claim victory in the majority of his comments, there.))..."
The problem here ... ?
Reppy's never "showed me up." I'd be surprised if he's ever shown anyone up. If all you do is say, "Hey, if you disagree with someone, they're automatically a radical," that doesn't really demonstrate a mastery of the methodology of the epistomological postmodern architecture of neo-Marxist praxis.
But hey, that's just my opinion. LOL!!
Wow Donnie, that was the worst evasion yet. You didn't say a god damn thing!
And what do you care if the questions have an “epistomological" basis or not? The truth is you can't answer the questions because you know I've got you pinned down like a sweaty polecat made entirely of sweat and excrement.
Honestly Don, you can't even answer whether or not you can understand why your own wife is crying if she tells you why she’s crying?? That shouldn't be too difficult, seeing as how you've already said you could understand why she's crying. But that was before you realized that you had just undermined your absurd point, and now you keep waffling on one of the most basic questions. And what’s sad is that none of those questions were traps at all…unless you’ve gone as far down the rabbit hole as you have; which is why you find yourself completely incapable of answering questions that we all know the answer to.
Jesus, you're a riot, Donald. You keep playing all these childish little games and imagine that you haven't lost as long as you pretend you haven't lost. Well sorry Don, covering your face doesn't make you invisible and denying reality doesn't make it go away. But all the same, I'm glad to see you back. I was getting bored without you and worried that I had finally scared you off for good. Each of your comments is like a minor catastrophe and brings a smile to my face each time. Keep up the bad work, Professor Fouglas. Maybe you could try answering the questions next time, though I’m confident you won’t.
Oh, and are you punishing me by not responding back on the appeasement debate? I liked that one better than this, as we seem to have a real disagreement on that one. But I'm sure you'll find some way to turn that into an attack on my integrity too. You always do.
Actually, instead of your chest-thumping you might actually respond to my answers. They certainly were not evasions. As I've said all along, you've made an argument based in external validation, and you've conceded the point (to a degree) with your update to the post. Not only that, I'm following your rules of debate, which you ignore, as usual. "John" said something about that, but you've thrown him under the bus. I'd be glad to move on to appeasement or greedy conservatives, or how the GOP invented terror ... whatever you want ... just as soon as you admit you're, frankly, a mountebank, at least here, and now that Obama's thrown Wright under the bus himself, you're basically on your own Custer's stand.
I know I'm getty to Reppy, that's for sure:
"Once upon a time I actually thought him reasonable--at the time, I was visiting a wingnut blog that was even more partisan, if you can believe it--but ol' Donnie can exhibit a real nasty streak when you show him up on a topic he fancies himself intelligent enough to discuss. (For a real kick, follow this link: And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: Obama's Pastor. Over 200 comments worth of Nero's obfuscation & pseudo-intellectual masturbation (and we're pretty certain he's not done... ...though he does claim victory in the majority of his comments, there.))..."
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Disagree with a 'mercanNeoCon, support terrorism
The problem here ... ?
Reppy's never "showed me up." I'd be surprised if he's ever shown anyone up. If all you do is say, "Hey, if you disagree with someone, they're automatically a radical," that doesn't really demonstrate a mastery of the methodology of the epistomological postmodern architecture of neo-Marxist praxis.
The lack of substance in the professor's reply proves the point I was making quite well, I think...
Guess I hurt ol' Nero's feelings, there...
No Donald, you DIDN’T answer the questions. First off, you were asked to write “Yes” or “No” at the beginning of your answers, but you didn’t. And that definitely caused confusion, as it allowed you to wallow in your standard vagueness. But even worse, you really didn’t answer the first question and entirely avoided answering the other three. All you did was explain why you wouldn’t answer them, and those aren’t answers. Those are evasions.
And so I had to ask follow-up questions for you to clarify your position, and you ignored them. You entirely ignored them and stated that you didn’t need to answer my questions because they had “no valid epistomological basis.” So now you’re pretending you answered the questions again? Donald, do you perhaps have a split personality that isn’t talking to you anymore? Not that I’d blame it, but it really does make it difficult to debate you when you keep changing your answers all the time.
And as a reminder, the update to my post is EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING THE WHOLE TIME!!! What is your confusion on this? But again, you’ve definitely confirmed that our debate was centered ONLY on the meaning of ONE WORD. Because it seems we were always in agreement that my statement was an opinion, and the only difference is your belief that my use of the word “obvious” accidentally converted my statement into an empirical statement. But as I’ve said from the start, not only was that not my intention, but that was LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE, and that such statements could NEVER have been empirical, no matter what word I used.
And that’s why my update couldn’t have been a concession, because it stated what I’ve been saying the whole time. But a big problem here is that you’ve refused to actually accept what I’ve said about my own position and insist that your version of my position is more accurate than my own version. In essence, you keep trying to make me a ridiculous strawman that doesn’t represent my position and keep debating against this strawman you invented. But again, that’s what you conservatives do all the time. You’ve decided that liberals MUST be wrong about everything, and you’re forced to reinvent our positions in order to make us wrong; rather than actually debating against what we’ve said.
For instance, if I say that I understand how conservatives can be greedy, you’ll reinvent it to say that I think ALL conservatives are greedy, even though I insist I don’t believe that. Or if I say that Obama’s view of diplomacy isn’t appeasement, you’ll reinvent it to suggest that I think appeasement of Hitler was a good thing. Or if I state my opinion that I think it’s obvious that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor, you’ll reinvent it to say that I think I can PROVE that he doesn’t agree.
As I’ve said before, you’re really not debating me. You’re debating the crazy liberals in your mind, and don’t seem to have any real understanding of what real liberals believe. And so while I’m desperately trying to figure out what your position is, despite all your best efforts to obfuscate your own views, you keep reinventing my positions and ignoring everything I say. How typical.
And BTW, for as much as you are now pretending to need to settle this debate before you explain your idiotic position on appeasement, I know the truth on that one too. You really didn't know what you're talking about and are using your absurd position on this debate to avoid explaining your absurd positions on the others. It's all about tricks and gimmicks with you. Anything to avoid a real debate.
Dr. Biedenialistmezmerizer!
"But again, you’ve definitely confirmed that our debate was centered ONLY on the meaning of ONE WORD."
I've already responded to this slur at least twice. Yes, it is about the word, as well as your attempts to reinvent the wheels of logic, in addition to inventing new debating rules as you go along!
This is about one word, at base. The use of "obvious" at the original post violates normal standards of communications.
And for the life of you, you'll do anything devilishly possible to get out from under your demented self-trap!
You've got your own semiotics over here, Dr. Biodenialist!
This debate was over long ago, when "John" confirmed my argument of your basic delusion, and all you can do is whine, "you DIDN’T answer the questions."
Keep spinning it your way, Dr. Denialistdemocraticcrybaby!
As our foe is no longer even saying anything, I figured it was time for a review...
Most folks would be embarrassed to shovel this much shit...
Not ol' Nero, though...
The disintegration of a mind that likely didn't even start out so good, & went downhill from there:
Bio-Boy
BIG. BIO. BRAIN. BOY.
Mr. Biowordsmith
Dr. Biorefusalmaster
Dr. Biostorysmith
Dr. Biowordinventor
Dr. Biohypocrite
Dr. Biohihilist.
Biowordsmithian!
Biodenialist
Dr. Bionihilistwordsmithian
Dr. Biolameinsultsareclever
bio-anti-American hordes
Dr. Biopostmoderndenialism
Dr. Biodenialmaster
bio-wordsmithianism
rule-master, neo-nihilist bio-wordmaster-of-disaster
Dr. Biodenialism
Mr. BioMcSquidly
Dr. Bio-Wrightmaster
Biobrainiac
Dr. Bioneverenditall
Dr. Biodenialistnihilistmaximalistfluffytrickster
Dr. Bionumbskullnihilist
Dr. Biodenialmachine
Dr. Bionumbnihilistmaster
Dr. Biodenialistnumbskullmaster
Dr. BionihilistradicalterrorendorserWrighthmaster
Dr. Biomasterdenialnihilist
Dr. Biocircularreasoningmaster
Dr. Biohoplesslylamemaster
Dr. Biodenialistprovesmypoints
Dr. Biowackadoodle
Dr. Biomcnastywordsmithiannihilist.
Dr. Biovampiredenialistlosermaster
As Bugs would say... "What a maroon..."
I thought you weren't obsessed, Reppy!! LOL!
Except perhaps in your tiny Con mind, it ain't obsession to post to a blog one visits & posts to regularly... (Hell, I was even here first (both the blog & this thread), so maybe you're obsessed with & following me...)
Do we really have to define "obsessed" for you, as well?
I just noticed I missed a few... I searched "Bio" not realizing that part of the disease must be the loss of ability to spell... There's at least three more of his silly pet names where he either did not use, or could no longer spell "Bio."
This debate was over long ago, when "John" confirmed my argument of your basic delusion, and all you can do is whine, "you DIDN’T answer the questions."
What are you talking about?
1) I din't confirm any point you were trying to make. I refuted damn near everything you wrote, from demanding proof of a negative to the status of fact versus opinion.
2) To be fair, you *didn't* answer the questions. There were simple, binary ("yes" or "no") questions. You failed to provide a "yes" or "no" response. That's a tacit admission that you do not have answers, and an implict concession of the debate. Thanks for playing!
Donald Sez: "This is about one word, at base. The use of "obvious" at the original post violates normal standards of communications."
You mean like this normal standard of communication:
“While there's much talk about our "broken" armed services (especially the army), it's obvious that a hasty retreat from Iraq is not in the nation's or the military's interest.”
Or how about this one:
“Are we ready to employ America's unprecedented military preponderance in wars of total, scorched earth annihilation (and is Israel)? Obviously not.”
Or this:
“Let’s start with the obvious. Sullivan is a lunatic.”
Or this:
“If there's anyone in this presidential race who has cause for hating war, it's obviously John McCain.”
Or this:
“That this smog of consensus is incompatible with the supposedly high-minded educational mission of colleges and universities is obvious.”
I could go on and on. Of course, those last two weren’t actually your words, but were merely quoted approvingly by you. Odd how such an abnormal usage of a word can be used so regularly, and at your prestigious blog, no less. And yes, I understand that under some invented rule of debate, you don’t have to address the fact that you use the word “obvious” to describe your opinions; but we both know you do. So you continue to smear me for something you do, something people you agree with do, and something which seems normal and easily fits within the dictionary definition, yet…you keep asking me to concede? Please.
And again, my point isn’t that you’re making the same mistake I made. My point is that neither of us used the word incorrectly because this is a perfectly normal usage of the word; as evidenced by the repeated use of it at your blog. So will you finally acknowledge this, or will we just see more spinning?
So, are you ready to concede on this idiotic point of semantics that you brought up, or are we going to go at this forever? God knows you couldn’t answer a few straightforward questions, knowing that they completely undermined your point, but you lack any other point so I don’t really see why you bother. Of course, this isn’t really about the word “obvious” or any of this other stuff, and is really about you having your little worldview shaken by the fact that an irrational liberal continues to eat your lunch in every debate you’ve had with him. Poor Donnie needs to keep his inflated ego from popping.
And why exactly do you keep insisting that John is the final arbiter of this debate? Doesn’t that mean that you lose, because he disagrees with you about everything? Donald, you’re a weird, weird man.
Three things, Dr. Biosmearmaster:
One, you have provided no links to substantiate your claims of my alleged use of "obvious."
Two, you have imported the words or ideas of others in an attempt to impugn my writing, which is illegitmate agumentation.
Three, it is not an "invented" rule of debate to place the burden on you for your usage of "obvious," which I have shown violates the logic of external validation, a point you have not rebutted, and are now left to play schoolyard tattling games: "See, teacher, he did it first." Face it, in debate, the proposing team is judged to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins.
This is your post, and you have failed to defend it, I again call for you to concede.
Say, Goatfucker, now that Obama has taken the step of ending his membership with Trinity United Church of Christ, an EXTERNALLY VALID ACT, is it not now "obvious" that he disagrees?
(Please note, I am not of the opinion that this action was necessary to cross the "obvious" threshold. You, however, seem to have placed arbitrary restrictions on the use of the word, which you seem free to ignore at your discretion. I'm just curious as to whether or not this act qualifies in your made-up dictionary. Your response will tell us far more about you than it will Sen Obama.)
Good God, man, you really, really suck at this. Please, try to keep up with current events. Objective reality should, in fact, have some influence on your opinions.
With the fair professor, it's all about do as I say, not as I do.
Hypocrisy, through & through...
If you're on the left, you're anti-semitic, even if you're a Jew.
Just a lotta bluster & hullabaloo...
Well, Dr. Bioantiintellectual, you've pretty much proved you shot your wad long ago. Those aren't my rules - those are generic standards of debate (but standards, obviously, with reference to all of your past evasions, don't matter over here).
My use of "obvious" has never been at issue. You've said Obama's views on Wright are self-evident, or however you want to define it, but then when I provide a rigorous, logical rebuttal you throw your hands up, yelling, "no fair, no fair ... teacher, teacher, he's cheating!!"
Just call it a day, man, and you can debate some other issues, about how dumb a campaigner McCain is, or whatever your smear du jour is.
The hypocrisy's here, remember, "opinion versus fact."
"John" put that scam to bed...
Channeling Biobrain: "You don't even know what hypocrisy means...!"
How pathetic ... :(
Sorry Don, I didn’t realize I needed to provide links to quotes from your own blog. Perhaps I was wrong for assuming you could use your own search function. And what’s with your use of “alleged”? Are you seriously suggesting that I invented these? Please, how desperate can you get? Anyway, because you insist:
“Are we ready to employ America's unprecedented military preponderance in wars of total, scorched earth annihilation (and is Israel)? Obviously not.”
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/fighting-to-win-advocating-total-war-in.html
“Let’s start with the obvious. Sullivan is a lunatic.”
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-clintons-case-for-michigan-and.html
“If there's anyone in this presidential race who has cause for hating war, it's obviously John McCain.”
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/allegations-of-mccain-plagiarism-reveal.html
“That this smog of consensus is incompatible with the supposedly high-minded educational mission of colleges and universities is obvious.”
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/academic-consensus-for-barack-obama.html
There, happy? Now will you finally explain why you keep saying that opinions can’t be obvious? Or are you going to continue to insist that all these usages were also wrong?
And what’s this nonsense about me importing others to impugn your writing? I was merely providing outside examples that came from your blog to show that my usage of the word “obvious” didn’t violate the normal standards of communications, as you had suggested. I used examples you wrote and examples you quoted from others to show that my usage was entirely appropriate. Are you really going to keep ignoring this obvious point?
And as a reminder, I’m not accusing you of making a mistake I made. I’m saying that neither of us made a mistake at all. These are outside examples demonstrating other people giving the same usage I did, showing that my usage was also proper. Just like you did when you quoted Yglesias. I’ve already explained this repeatedly and you’ve never explained how I’m wrong.
As for your third point, Donald, there are no judges here. It’s just you and me and anyone who wants to read what we wrote. So it’ll be quite impossible for me to defend my point to the satisfaction of nonexistent judges. Sorry to be the one to tell you that. There will be no trophy for the poor professor.
Beyond that, I already have proven my point repeatedly. I’ve shown dictionary definitions that back-up my point. I’ve used real world examples of other people using the word the same way, including you. The problem here is that you’re totally wrong and just won’t admit it. But you’re not the judge who needs to be satisfied. There are no judges here. I’ve demolished you with every comment I’ve made and the best you can do is to assert that I haven’t.
As for your “external validation” nonsense, that’s never made any sense because my statement was an opinion. We’ve already gone over this before. Are you really this dense? Oh that’s right, you are. I forgot. Sorry.
Oh, and btw, I’m not sure where you got the idea that the person who makes the initial assertion has the burden of proof throughout the entire debate, but that’s nonsense. The burden of proof is on anyone who makes an assertion. You have defend what you wrote, it’s that simple. If you claim that I need “external validation” to state an opinion, you have to explain why. It’s not for me to prove that your assertion is wrong. And you’ve never explained why. You merely repeat your assertion that the word “obvious” somehow turned my opinion into an empirical statement and never bothered explaining how that happened either.
In your world, it’s always the other guy who has to explain everything to your satisfaction. And if they can’t, which they never can, then you imagine that you’ve won. And you don’t think you have to explain anything, because you’re the judge and jury, rather than a participant. As I’ve said before, you’re a weird weird man, Donald.
Ready to concede?
"The problem here is that you’re totally wrong and just won’t admit it."
You're still at it, I see, your self-aggrandizing. You've won nothing.
You did not add hyperlinks, so you could be making up quotes to smear me, but if you look at all of the examples, they illustrate the use of the word "obvious" with an external reference. That's right, in every example to which you can point my argument makes an exxternal reference. That's because something that's obvious directs those to that which is evident. Hello!!
All you've done is dodge the logic of my recent documentations of the postmodern Biodenialist endorsement of hate.
It does not matter if a judge is deciding this debate or not, because these are objective standards, and since you deny them, this simply shows that you're a hopeless postmodernist, who will bend any rule to suit your vile ways.
But you write:
------->
"Oh, and btw, I’m not sure where you got the idea that the person who makes the initial assertion has the burden of proof throughout the entire debate, but that’s nonsense. The burden of proof is on anyone who makes an assertion. You have defend what you wrote, it’s that simple. If you claim that I need “external validation” to state an opinion, you have to explain why. It’s not for me to prove that your assertion is wrong. And you’ve never explained why. You merely repeat your assertion that the word “obvious” somehow turned my opinion into an empirical statement and never bothered explaining how that happened either."
<--------
There are objective standards, and for the 100th time, I have "bothered" to explain the illogic of your assertions.
Remember, we're not referring to YOUR opinion about what Obama knows ... you said that Obama's views are knowable, that they are obvious, and you still haven't directed anyone in this debate to that source of information.
That's your problem, essentially: You think we're debating obious in the "subjective" sense, but we're not, as I've shown all along. You use obvious in the "intersubjective" sense, which means all participants to an exchange have access to a raw objective data point which then can be used to make a subjective evaluation. Thus, an agreement becomes intersubjective upon mutual recognition of the external referent.
If I said, "Are we ready to employ America's unprecedented military preponderance in wars of total, scorched earth annihilation (and is Israel)? Obviously not," that is a manifestly objective statement, because public opinion and left-wing retreatism currently restrains the U.S. for preemption against Iran, and the administration is battered enough, and U.S. forces are spread thin, etc.... We are not ready to attack Iran, obviously.
If I say, "If there's anyone in this presidential race who has cause for hating war, it's obviously John McCain," I'm making a reference to McCain's sacrifice in battle, and the personal pain he endured. It's a fact that he was held in captivity, and it's obvious he did not like having his arms, broken, simply because human biology avoids pain. It's a fact that we lost 58,000 personnel in the war, and that such conflicts are abominable and to be resisted (while sometimes unavoidable), i.e., hated as the least best option available to U.S. foreign policy.
I could go on, because I use the word "obvious" the way it's supposed to be used: There is no subjective logic to the use of the word.
Even my nemesis Yglesias got it right when he referred to the war as being a disaster, that it was "obvious" things were going badly at that time, because they were.
I pointed out the Yglesias example earlier in this thread and you blew it off, frankly, because you'll make up any debating rule you cand find to get out from being a stinky polecat.
Your response here is just another dodge of my SUPERIOR REASON. There are standard in debate. You will not use them, and you never have. Recall the logic of the courtroom, which YOU brought into debate over N=1? When I turned it around to say that witness testimony could be used for a conviction, you then screamed, "opinion can't be a fact."
WAAAHHH!
"John of the Dead" hammered you on that logic, and he's been so embarrassed by making my case for me, he's consigned to piddling befuddlement around the edges of this thread.
You've not once been able to refute that logic, and it just shows that this whole debate with you over this last 18-months is useless. You are anti-intellectual. You endorse hatred and racism. You project onto to others the evil sentiments your own posts embody. You add qualifiers to avoid taking responsibility for your statements. You're shamelessly postmodernist.
In sum, you have no moral standards.
You're pinned, again, Dr. Biopukesampler. You need to make that concession, or simply provide an external reference to validate your claim that what Obama has thought about Wright's hatred is "obvious."
You did not add hyperlinks, so you could be making up quotes to smear me
Now we can add paranoia to the list... The professor's goin' down faster than his chosen presidential candidate...
Anyone reading this (even Nero, if he tries hard enough) can find & follow each of those lines that begin with "http://americanpowerblo..." to the quote that precedes it in Bio's last comment. Anyone who does, can then judge whether Bio's just making up quotes to smear the professor, or whether the professor's just showing us how paranoid against truth he really is.
Contrary to Nero's protestations, no external reference is necessary for one to state that an opinion is "obvious". If there were any such restriction on use of the word, it would appear in some dictionary somewhere, and yet our poor professor has been unable to find a single published dictionary definition anywhere to back his assertion that such an external reference is necessary before using the word obvious.
Lacking any substantial proof, Nero reverts to whining & namecalling. Typical.
Remember, we're not referring to YOUR opinion about what Obama knows ... you said that Obama's views are knowable, that they are obvious, and you still haven't directed anyone in this debate to that source of information.
It's not about what Obama knows or doesn't know at all, but about what Obama believes. (Refer back to the original post, & to the sentence in question. Hopefully, the majority of you won't need a hyperlink.) And what is the external referent for Obama's beliefs? His actions, perhaps? If one needs an external referent, one can look at the words & deeds of Obama to decide for oneself whether he believes the same things as his preacher. As far as Bio (& I, & many, many others) can tell & thus believe, he does not. To us, Obama's words & deeds regarding race relations (& pretty much every other topic) make it petty obvious that Obama does not believe the same things as his preacher.
Might we all be wrong? I suppose... Obama could be masking his rampant racism until he gets into office, when he will then sign an executive order making it a crime to be white, or something... But it ain't real likely.
To many, Obama's words & deeds up to now are the external referents that make it obvious to us he doesn't believe the same things that Wright believes.
Why the professor cannot grasp this is somewhat less obvious, though his inability to do so is plainly obvious.
Perhaps I'll return for the rest of Nero's twaddle later...
Ahh, no, that's not quite it, Batnutz...
The issue is not Dr. Biobrain's opinion, the issue is what Obama knows, and how Dr. Biodenialist says those views are "obvious."
That's fine if Dr. Biobrain thinks Obama thinks Wright's evil is wrong, but we have no objective evidence - at the time this post was written - to indicate this as true.
You guys are hopelessly lost on this...and your hatred of me is becoming the focal point now. Paranoia, come on?
Dr. Biobrain's lazy. He needs to provide links if he's going to make allegations.
You guys are a disaster...
Remember, we're not referring to YOUR opinion about what Obama knows ... you said that Obama's views are knowable, that they are obvious, and you still haven't directed anyone in this debate to that source of information.
See, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Like most conservatives, you somehow imagine that I have to prove to your satisfaction that your assertion is false, and until I do that, you’ll pretend that your assertion is already established fact. But it isn’t. The word “obvious” can be used to describe both facts and opinions, as I’ve shown repeatedly, and I’ve always insisted that my statement was opinion and not factually knowable. But you’re forced to keep blowing past this point because it entirely undermines everything you’ve written.
And once I explained to you that I wasn’t making an empirical statement, it should have ended. That was the only point you were trying to make and once I clarified my intent at the beginning of this debate, it was over. We disagreed over the use of one word, but once you heard my clarification and realized that we were basically in agreement, you should have let it drop. But you couldn’t. Why? Because it’s all you’ve got. A normal person would have accepted my clarification, but I’ve learned long ago that you are definitely not normal. So you had to keep attacking me over semantics while insisting that I was the one making the semantics debate. Why? Because you’ve convinced yourself that there are no logical liberals and couldn’t stand the fact that one kept demolishing you in these debates.
So when you misinterpreted one word I wrote, you decided to hang your entire debate on that misinterpretation, and now find yourself in the unenviable position of having to defend the indefensible. So you keep tossing out big word gibberish and empty insults in the hope to confuse and tire me; which I’ve found is your standard method of “winning” debates. You imagine that the person who gives up debating first is the loser and have developed a Debate by Attrition method, where you substitute the standard rules of debate with your own rules which are designed to frustrate people so they won’t ever want to deal with you again. And then you declare victory.
And in the end, the only thing you’re trying to make me concede is that I used one word improperly. Yet, I’ve shown over and over that I used the word correctly. Not only does it fit within the dictionary definition, but it fits with how it’s used in the real world, as well as at your own blog. So you’re wanting me to concede on a idiotically minor point on something I’m right about. You’re too funny, Donald. But of course, you’re really just trying to force me to quit the debate, as it’s the only possible way you could “win.” Pathetic. I’m not sure where you got the idea that debates are endurance contests, but they’re not. They’re logic contests, which makes it understandable why you’d prefer a different criteria for victory.
The Quotes
And sorry to break this to you, but those sentences I quoted from your blog were most definitely opinions. Was there an “external basis” for making those opinions? Yes. Were they objective statements? No, they weren’t. Remember, the standard for objectivism is: Are these statements provable? And in each case, the answer is that they’re not. They’re opinions that you said are “obvious,” just as I had an opinion that I said was obvious. I’ll explain, giving the initial quote and hyperlink first:
“If there's anyone in this presidential race who has cause for hating war, it's obviously John McCain.”
Yes, it’s a fact that McCain was a POW and was tortured. But is it a fact that McCain hates war more than Obama or Hillary? No, that’s an opinion. And it’s not an opinion I agree with at all. I completely reject that opinion because I believe that anyone who supported and continues to support our optional war in Iraq must not hate war as much as the people who oppose it. Now, I understand why you people believe that McCain doesn’t like war (though it has nothing to do with him being a POW and everything to do with people hating the war and him wanting to get elected in spite of his support for the war), but it’s not a factual claim. You can’t prove it and there are millions of people who think you are wrong. Nor is it “universally recognized,” which was one definition you once insisted that obvious statements must be.
Oh, and in case you didn’t know, McCain’s suggestion that he hates war more than people who haven’t served in war is meant to be an underhanded slap in the face to Bush, Cheney, and the other warhawks who avoided service in Vietnam. In essence, it’s the equivalent of the chickenhawk smear that you conservatives hate so much. Pretty funny, when you think about it. McCain has to keep insulting Bush and the Republicans to get elected, and you people don’t even notice because you’re too busy attacking Obama. Funny.
“Are we ready to employ America's unprecedented military preponderance in wars of total, scorched earth annihilation (and is Israel)? Obviously not.”
Now this one is definitely an opinion, as it’s a prediction that hasn’t happened yet. How can a prediction be factual? Now, I happen to agree with this one, but it’s still an opinion because it can’t be proven. I can also predict that I'll see the sun tomorrow, but until it happens, it's not a factual statement.
“Let’s start with the obvious. Sullivan is a lunatic.”
Are you honestly trying to suggest that you can prove that Andrew Sullivan is a lunatic? Really? Again, I happen to agree with this opinion, but it can’t be factual. You can’t prove that he’s a lunatic, and if you could, I wish you would do so and get him some professional help. Or at least get him to stop blogging.
Your “Objective” Opinions
But then again, a careful reading of your comment seems to indicate that you’re now admitting that these are opinions and that they don't need to be "universally recognized" to be obvious (though you've been careful to not admit that you've changed your definition of "obvious" to include opinions). So you had to create an arbitrary standard that your quotes pass and mine doesn’t. You write that opinions can be obvious when “all participants to an exchange have access to a raw objective data point which then can be used to make a subjective evaluation,” which is Donaldese for saying that we need an objective basis for our opinions. You then pretend as if there is an objective basis for your opinions, which is different from my quotes of Obama. So let’s look at these again, in search of this alleged objective basis.
Sure, McCain was a POW and has seen the horrors of war, but that doesn’t mean anything. Hitler saw the evils of war, suffered a leg wound in battle and was hospitalized by a WMD, yet he didn’t hate war at all. Far from it. So is there an objective standard that says everyone who suffers from war automatically hates it? No, there isn’t. The very idea borders on non sequitir, as there is no specific link between being hurt in war and hating war. Sure, maybe McCain hates war more than Obama, though I don’t believe it. But there is no objective basis for that opinion. It’s based upon a subjective belief and one that really doesn’t make much sense. Again, your objective link from “hurt in war” to “hates war the most” is missing.
Even worse was the “objective” basis for your opinion that Americans wouldn’t stand for scorched-earth annihilation. Because there is no objective basis for that at all. While I happen to agree with you on that, it’s based entirely on opinion. I also once believed that we’d never be stupid enough to invade Iraq, and we saw how wrong that prediction was. At best, you might be able to cite opinion polls which are mildly subjective and even that isn’t conclusive proof of anything.
And the fact that you think your statement was actually objective is entirely laughable. Every reason you cited is opinion and many Republicans disagree with it. The whole thing is opinion all the way up, starting at the opinion polls and then working up through the subjective analysis of them. Who knows, maybe we’re both wrong and people would accept scorched-earth war with Iran right now. It’s certainly possible. And that excludes it from the world of objectivism, because objective statements are provable and yours wasn’t, because it was a prediction. Sorry.
And then we move on to your “obvious” opinion that Sullivan is a lunatic. Again, I agree with this opinion, but what is the basis for that opinion? His words. That’s it. The things he wrote. Yet…you’ve said that we can’t use Obama’s words as verification that he disagrees with his pastor, so how can we use Sullivan’s words as the basis for his lunacy? Even worse for you, Obama directly stated that he disagreed with his pastor, while Sullivan, to my knowledge, has never stated that he is a lunatic (that would actually be the first sign of his sanity). So how can we use his writings to justify your opinion when we can’t use Obama’s words to justify mine?
Valid Opinions
The truth is that all of these were valid opinions, right or wrong, but none of them have a truly objective basis. Your opinions were no different from mine. I didn’t pull my opinion out of my ass. I based it upon Obama’s words and my belief that he was being truthful. Just as you based your opinions on your belief in McCain’s hatred of war, America’s hatred of annihilation, and Sullivan’s lunatic writings. And while there were valid reasons for you to think these things, they were just as valid as the basis for my opinion of Obama.
Face it, Donald. It’s over. It was over a long, long time ago. You keep flailing about like a blindman in a riot, and can’t even land one punch. This is pathetic. We’re both in agreement about everything we’ve debated here, except you refuse to admit it and have to keep reinventing my positions in order to imagine that I haven’t destroyed you repeatedly. But I have. You can misinterpret what I write all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you lost.
And rather than admit to this and move on, all you can do is to keep embarrassing yourself further and hope I’ll just give up. I keep telling you Donald, I won’t. This is much too fun. Rather than admit that you were mistaken over this insignificant point of semantics, you’re stuck debating this forever or risk damaging that little ego of yours.
Ready with that concession, Donnie? Of course not. You'll just keep tossing out even more arbitrary rules, lamebrained hairsplitting, bizarre phrasing to confuse everything, and topping it off with more insults and childish name-calling that would embarrass a third grader (or do you imagine that "Dr. Biopukesampler" was a valid description of me?). And I'll just keep laughing at you all the way.
Oh, and just so you don't think I'm being sneaky, I thought you should know that I turned this comment into a new blogpost, partly because I didn't have anything better to write about, but mainly because I felt it was a good response that helped showcase how crazy you conservatives can be. I'm sure you won't mind at all.
The issue is not Dr. Biobrain's opinion, the issue is what Obama knows, and how Dr. Biodenialist says those views are "obvious."
Since Nero obviously forgot the sentence he's debating, & appears unable to find it without a hyperlink, neon signs, & a big red X after all, I repeat it for his benefit right here, where he hopefully cannot miss it no matter how desperately he tries:
Bio said, "It's obvious Obama doesn't believe these things, so the whole thing was little more than just a smear against him and a blessed distraction for his two opponents (see footnote below)."
Explain how saying "...Obama doesn't believe these things..." in your mind becomes a discussion of "...what Obama knows..."
"Dr. Biobrain's lazy. He needs to provide links if he's going to make allegations."
So, Nero... Exactly what are those sentences that begin "http://americanpowerblog" if not links? Are you really saying you are incapable of following them? Blaming Bio for your poor internet skills makes you look petty...
Ah... hello...
You still don't get what "external validation means." Buy, hey, did you write the post first, or did you copy and paste a commment to make a post? Either way, you're desperate. There's NOTHING you can do to get out of your jam. I've shown exactly the CORRECT usage of "obvious," in all of my examples, I refer to something that truly is "obvious," for example, McCain's hardship in captivity in Vietnam. I do not refer to his "opinion," nor is it mine ... the crisis he faced personally. It's universally observed, hence obvious. The fact that you finally link to my freakin' blog at least shows you've got a thread of ethics in you.
But, lest we forget, you're violating the universal practices of civilized debate, cited above, so you remain, as always, an immoral sleazy cheater.
Is it my imagination, or is the professor getting more incoherent & incapable of using proper English as he rants on?
Once again, he says nothing. If there's one bright spot to his last non-responsive response, at least he used less words to do so, this time.
the CORRECT usage of "obvious
If Nero believes it, it's obvious, if Nero doesn't believe it, it isn't obvious.
The fact that you finally link to my freakin' blog
Nero can't follow "http" links, and you are therefore unethical & wrong for using them... Shame on you, Bio... You should've known better. Another of "Nero's universal rules of debate (with him)" in tatters...
It's the post, Reppy, "Debate by Attrition."
No need to make a bunch of references to it by name ... Dr. Biosansmoralsman did a cut and paste job, but it didn't go over well, and it has NOT deflected the basic argument.
One CANNOT use "obvious" the way Dr. Bionovaluesmaster uses it in this entry, and seeking to enter into debate comments that I made elsewhere is outside of accepted practice, is unethical, and is representative of the "No Values" nihilism that we see over here.
Joseph Lieberman you guys aren't...
On behalf of everyone here, we're sorry you're so sadly mistaken, Nero... Your rules of debate (do as I say, but pay no attention to anything I do) do not apply here.
Anyone who takes the time to read any exchange between you & anyone else here will recognize that you've lost the debate. All your protestations to the contrary just make folks feel more sorry for you.
Better luck next time, though...
Donald - Yet again, the problem for you with those examples is that there is no direct link from your so-called "external validation" to the opinion you gave. It's the equivalent of someone explaining that, because 2+2=4 and 4+4=Blue; therefore blue skies are good. Sure, the first part is factual, but there's no link between numbers and colors. They'd have to prove that Blue=8 and that this makes blue things good, and unless they did that, there is no objective basis for making the claim. Similarly, you skipped a step in your "validation" and your facts aren't valid support of your opinion. Again, it's not enough to have ONE fact somewhere in your argument; you have to have a fact that leads directly to the opinion you were expressing, and you don't have them here.
For McCain, are you seriously suggesting that EVERY soldier who has suffered severely in war hates war more than EVERY person who hasn't suffered in war? Because that's the point you're making. And even if you ARE saying that, that's your opinion. I don't agree with it at all and think that McCain DOES like war and is lying when he says he doesn't. And THAT's the point you'd need to prove and one that is NOT universally observed or recognized. So the basis for your opinion about McCain is yet another opinion, and one that also isn't linked from the fact you gave.
And what about the other two examples? Are you seriously suggesting you have external validation that Andrew Sullivan is a lunatic? Or that you have validation backing up your prediction about scorched-earth annihilation? At best, all you've got is the writings of Sullivan and opinion polls to back-up these opinions; which is why, I suppose, you decided to not mention them.
And all of this ignores the fact that opinions can be obvious and don't require external validation and that I never implied that I had external validation of my opinion. I agree that Andrew Sullivan is a lunatic, but don't imagine that I have any sort of objective proof of this. Opinions don't need to have any level objectiveness; not even obvious ones. You keep asserting that I need external validation, but can only support this claim by asserting it again. That's not terribly convincing. I can cite multiple definitions that say opinions don't need to be proven, and you haven't provided one source that says opinions require any sort of validation.
And if you could provide some sort of proof of these "univeral" rules of debate, that'd be great. Because it looks from my perspective that you've invented these as a way to frustrate people so much that they stop debating with you, so you can pretend you won the debate. But unfortunately for you, I'm on to your tricks and refuse to let you off the hook. Better luck next time.
One CANNOT use "obvious" the way Dr. Bionovaluesmaster uses it in this entry...
Says who? You? You have failed, repeated, under direct challenge, to prove this. You can offer no proof of any sort of "external validation" requirement to the proper usage of the word "obvious," yet you insist upon it. Why is it, do you think, that no dictionary in the world makes mention of this, if it is so integral to the definition? Under standard debate rules, one is required to offer proof of assertions; if no proof can be provided, the point must be conceded. We still await your proof, and your continued insistence upon ignoring these demands for proof is, in itself, a tacit concession of the bankruptcy of your entire argument. YOU FAIL.
I fully realize that you make a brain-damaged Down's syndrome patient seem to be an intellectual giant by comparison, and that you are incapable of actually learning anything, no matter how simply it is explained, but perhaps there are others reading this who could learn from your failure. Have you ever heard of the concept of Occam's Razor? Briefly, it posits that when there are multiple possible solutions/explanations, the one with the fewest unknown variables is usually the correct solution. In this case, you seem to be arguing that your definition is correct, despite the fact that every dictionary in the world disagrees. This requires massive failure on the part of many reference librarians the world over. A much simpler explanation is that you are an idiot of epic proportions who cannot use a dictionary (nor, apparently, find his own asshole with a flashlight and a map) and will not learn to do so despite repeated efforts to educate you. Now, one explanation requires the failure of thousands of people. One requires one idiot. Which solution has the fewest variables, hmm?
"Because it looks from my perspective that you've invented these as a way to frustrate people so much that they stop debating with you, so you can pretend you won the debate."
Here you go again, Dr. Biodenialist.
Let me remind you: It's not my post, nor is it my argument, that on the defense. It is yours. You want to debate colors when what's at issue is your claim that what Obama knows what is "obvious." The fact that you're even debating my claim that McCain's positions are obvious is validation for the point that I deal with empiricism, agument that can be affirmed by objective data.
But again, it's not my points that are the problem. It's yours. Deflect all you want to MY posts. Link all you want to My posts. Fine with me. I've made corrections before, and I'm sure I'll do it again, because reality does indeed intrude to my world, which is positivist.
Yours is not. You're anti-positivist in fundamental orientation, so you'll go on forever deflecting and obfuscating the unimpeachable fact that you're a total fraud, as I've said all along.
Just update your partial concession at the post here to include a full disclaimer that your entry is based in bogus logic. Maybe you can save face by saying it was only humorous, but whatever you do, know that you're at a disastrous dead end if you've got to search MY blog to get you our of YOUR jam.
A debate judge would laugh you off the floor, as I never entered my use of obvious into consideration - it's not at issue, and again, if it was, I'd adjust, if needed (which is not the case here, for the record). No sweat off my back ... I'm just not an insecure postmodern nihilist.
Nero, your reference is to these universal rules of debate.
Your mission--should you decide to back your claims with supporting facts, for once--is to provide a link or two to the rule(s) in question from a reputable source--& seeing as how these rules are universal, there should be at least one reputable source--& then point to specific examples (quoted &/or linked) of Bio (or anyone else) breaking the rule(s) you cite in an effort to cheat, or whatever.
Your failure to do so will be evidence to all who read this, now & forever, that your "universal rules of debate" are less than universal, and may in fact be your own inventions, created in an effort to sidestep the truth & claim undeserved victory...
I suspect that, as always, you'll refuse to back your words with evidence, but I hope one day you'll man up & at least make the attempt to prove me wrong about you...
Either way, all current & future readers of this thread will be watching for your reply.
Sorry I took so long to get back with a response on this, Donald, but after having read your "rebuttal" I couldn't stop laughing. Seriously.
So let me get this straight: Because I'm pointing out that your use of the word "obvious" is the same as mine, this is somehow proof that your arguments can be affirmed by objective data? I’m quite positive there is no logic to that claim, but hey, if you think your arguments are based in objective data, why don’t you bother providing it to us?
Oh, but sorry. I look ahead and now see that you are admitting that that you made a mistake in those posts you wrote and have now issued corrections. Ouch, sucks to be you. But hey, if you are admitting that you made the same dreaded mistake you imagine I made, then doesn't that suggest that your entries were also based on bogus logic; per your argument? As I’ve continued to point out, the one sentence you keep attacking wasn’t even important to my post, but you imagine that my entire post has bogus logic because I used one word that you think we both used incorrectly? Is that really how logic works on the planet you’re from? Or is that the reason they sent you here?
And again, I never suggested you made any mistake with your posts, and thought your usage was completely valid. It's the same usage of the word "obvious" that you can find throughout the internet. The reality is that you were desperate to vindicate your embarrassing defeat of so long ago and imagined you found some minor slip-up in my word usage that you could finally use to "get" me. But you got alittle ahead of yourself and now have made a complete fool of yourself...again.
And like any good conservative, you continue to double-down on your mistake, hoping that I'll finally back down and give you some imagined victory to help swell up that tiny little ego of yours. But no such luck, Donald. I can keep this up forever. You’re mine, bitch. Deal with it.
Post a Comment