Monday, March 24, 2008

Obama's Pastor

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.

239 comments:

1 – 200 of 239   Newer›   Newest»
repsac3 said...

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion about Wright... In context, they really are not all that offensive... While the right will try to milk it for all it's worth--Professor Donald Douglas is on his 6th or 7th post about it, so far--there really is no there there. Some will be fooled by the snippets, but eight months from now, the majority of Americans will judge Obama on Obama, not on Wright.

Shimmy said...

Funny how Glenn Beck never talks anymore about all those dogs he tortured and killed (pit bulls).

Americaneocon said...

You say:

"It's obvious Obama doesn't believe these things."

Why is it obvious? Do you have evidence that Obama doesn't believe these things?

In fact, at his San Antonio speech he said Americans couldn't be proud of their country. I have it on YouTube. I don't have evidence that he thinks America deserved 9/11, but Obama said last week in his Philadelphia speech that he was in church when Wright said controversial statements. He could have been there when Wright said precisely such things.

This demands repudiation.

But what he would not do is "disown" Wright, but that's exactly what he needs to do. It's not "guilt by association," it's a question of judgment. One is frequently measured by the company they keep, and is this case Wright reflects very, very badly on Obama.

But you defend him. You haven't changed, Biobrain. You've no intellectual standards whatsever. I think that's pathetic, but that's just my opinion.

Now, who was that who's a nutjob?

Doctor Biobrain said...

Really, Don. And is that why you believed that John Kerry was a good Catholic? Or can you explain why it is that Kerry was attacked for not being faithful enough to his religion, while Obama is attacked for being too faithful even after he distanced himself from it? Why, if I didn't know better, I'd think you people attack Democrats no matter WHAT they did. But I'm sure that can't be true.

And if you reference a speech, it'd really help if you gave a link. How can I refute something I haven't seen? Anyway, I went to your blog and found the clip and, surprise surprise, you changed the meaning of his words. He wasn't saying Americans couldn't be proud. He was saying that when they go to other countries, they hide the fact that they're Americans. He's not saying this is good; he's saying it's what happens. And that IS what happens. Hell, I saw a Simpson's rerun the other day which had a joke about that; where they went to Japan and Lisa tries to hide her nationality and then Homer makes an ass of himself by waving a flag and insulting everyone. It was quite funny, and they could make a joke of it because they know everyone knows it's true. But perhaps you think they're jerks for making a joke of it too.

Beyond that, it's obvious that Obama thought this was wrong, and that Americans shouldn't be ashamed to admit they're Americans. That's the whole point of what he was saying. But it's not really that they're ashamed of America as much as they're ashamed to be associated with our government. Is it really wrong for Obama to mention this? He's just the messenger; it was Bush and the conservatives who made it happen. They're the ones to be blamed; just as Obama is doing. But he's obviously not ashamed of America. He's a proud American; as am I.

BTW, I actually did hear that speech. I saw it in person at a rally here in Austin, and everyone at the rally knew exactly what he was saying. It's the only political rally I've ever been to, and it was awesome. Sucks to be you that you're missing out on this great American due to your rightwing bias.

As for "deserving" 9/11, Wright wasn't pulling a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson and saying that we deserved it. If you watch his sermon, it's obvious he's saying that it was predictable that such a thing would happen, after all the wrongful killing we've done. When we throw around our might and kill innocent people, it's not surprising that some evil a-holes decide to do the same to us. That's not to say we deserved it. But I can't say the innocent people we've killed in Iraq deserved to die either. You might justify the war, but can you really say they "deserved" to die?

And so if I search your blog, will I find where you denounced Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson for saying that we deserved 9/11? I mean, Falwell actually used the word "deserved" and said that God did it, instead of blaming Bin Laden; and Robertson agreed with that. So I can only imagine that you strongly denounced both of them as well as every one of their supporters, right? Please don't forget to leave the link for me, thanks.

Oh, and you're still the nutjob. Sorry.

Americaneocon said...

The issues not Kerry. I said not a word about him.

The issue is your argument, which is wholly unsubtantiated.

So, before you try to attack anything I say, you've got to justify your claim. That you haven't done, and of course, you're left with sinking to name-calling. I don't name call, I just call 'em like I see 'em: You're a fraud, a completely dishonest one at that.

The YouTube with Obama's anti-American statement is here, with the incendiary remarks at 10:05 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxvSqSXs0io

As you've seen it, you're playing your game of semantics and spin once again. Deny all you want, on and on with the gyrations, but Obama said that young Americans can't hold their heads high to say they're proud Americans. It's a pattern, obviously, in the Obama family.

And you concede my point when you say "Americans shouldn't be ashamed to admit they're Americans." Right...Obama thinks that when he's elected, Americans can once again be proud, that they'll be again be able to hold their head high and say I'm an American. The "Simpsons" will be then joking about "God Damn America" videos in the Oval Office.

Johh McCain's not a member of Falwell or Robertson's flock, so you're just putting up a moral equivalence smokescreens. Obama's been in the pews at Trinity since 1991, and he's conceded he's heard controversial things. In that he's at least honest, unlike your post, and your evasion. No class man. Just concede your flawed logic at the entry - it's there for all to see.

You're way out on the radical fringe here, as Rasmussen, for example, showed that only 9 percent of Americans had postive view of Wright, and that was generous.

Now, getting back to the point from our debate last summer: You're completely hypocritical. You trumpeted facts, facts, facts in defending N=1 last summer, and now that you don't have facts to support your outlandish allegations, you obfuscate, prevaricate, and attack with moral condescension. That's pathetic.

Wholly unanalytical, but par for the course among those on the nihilist, America-bashing left.

No need to debate futher. Victory's mine, hands down. Falwell and Robertson, sheesh, I'd say this is joke, but you're totally serious.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Donald, how can you call me a dishonest fraud, yet pretend you’re not insulting me? And no, it doesn’t help when you insist you’re just telling the truth. I truthfully think you’re a nutjob, yet you insist this is an insult all the same. Insults can be truthful too.

Second, what game of “semantics” am I playing? Are you even aware of what that word means? I’m not playing with the meaning of words. It’s the same with your insistence that insults are “ad hominem”. It’s like these are words people use against you in debates, yet you fail to understand their meaning.

As for what Obama said: He was telling the truth. What is your problem with that? Many Americans are ashamed to admit to being American when they go to other countries, and Obama says this is wrong and is blaming Bush for it. And he didn’t say that this will change once he becomes president, but rather once he fixes Bush’s blunders and makes America beloved again. I know reality has a well-known liberal bias, but that still doesn’t mean it’s wrong to acknowledge reality. Again, you’re blaming the messenger here, while ignoring the people who created the problem.

As for Falwell and Robertson, the point is obvious: You don’t care that they said that God caused 9/11 because we “deserved” it. Wright never said that we deserved it, yet Falwell did. I’m not trying to blame McCain for that, though he definitely wooed Falwell to aid his presidential bid. This isn’t a “moral equivalence.” This is that Falwell and Robertson did exactly what you wrongly claim Wright did; yet you don’t care at all. Should we accept it as given that you think all of Falwell’s and Robertson’s supporters are disqualified from being president?

And finally, I would like to point out that you really haven’t disputed anything I wrote. In fact, you’re behaving completely hypocritically. You trumpet facts, facts, facts in attacking me, but since you don't have any facts to support your outlandish allegations, you obfuscate, prevaricate, and attack with moral condescension. That's pathetic. And yes, I found it quite easy to cut-and-paste your own words to use against you because I find they’re totally appropriate. Donald, meet Mirror.

You can claim victory all you want, but I doubt that even you believe it. That’s why you have to spend all your time insulting me and pretending to have won, but it doesn’t help your case.

(Oops, had to change something because I didn’t do a preview)

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biobrain:

First, youe whole schtick is fraudulent, in that when you're called out for not supporting an assertion, you evade, obfuscate, and attack. This is especially pathetic since your whole line of attack last summer is that I had no facts to support my opinion. Double-standard, no?

So, I'm just employing the same line of reasoning. To be credible you must respond to that point, and if you don't have a clear answer, concede the point and move on.

Now, I don't think YOU know the meaning of words. For example, your twisting of words all around in your spin of what Wright said, this and that, right here in this post, is a question of semantics, i.e., anything of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.

This is your whole game, all the time, to twist words and meanings to fit what you want to believe, especially when you have no facts to support your case, like the present example. Like you're doing in response to my comments to the original post, "Obama's Pastor."

Now, vericandium ad hominem is a form of illogical reasoning in which one attacks the person rather than the idea. Last summer, actually, you had some pretty good arguments, and you did not descend to personal attacks, ad hominems which would obviously discredit any intellectual firepower you might be able to muster.

So yes, I know what I'm talking about, and I've indulged you enough: All you're doing is dodging the issue. I didn't discuss John Kerry and I don't condone whatever Falwell or Robertson may or may not have said.

So, first, to be seen yourself as not out of your mind, you first need to say that your point about Obama obviously not knowing about the sermons is insupportable. If you can do that, we can get back to a reasonable debate, because at this point, your way of argument is fraudulent, and I'm sure that hurts you to point it out, but that's why you raise the nutjob riposte.

Also, if you can concede about Obama's non-obviousness, I'd be glad to debate you on what Obama has said - that young Americans abroad can't be proud to say "I'm an American," as in San Antonio.

He did not say Bush, he said American. Sorry, but he does not think that one can be proud of America, and he did not specify a timeline, and you have no facts to disprove the point.

Michelle Obama is a separate case altotogether, but she did enumerate a timeline, which she said was "her lifetime." Now based on that, I would not want her as a top personal advisor - as First Lady - in the White House. She does not love her country, can't be proud, in her own words, no matter how you try to change or shade her meaning, in other words, despite what semantic games you want to play with her statement.

All of this, including Obama's refusal renounce Wright, completely disqualifies him as president. Ninety-tow percent in Rasmussen said they did not approve of Reverend Wright. A majority in a CNN poll said that the Wright issue should be a major campaign focus.

I think you, and your candidate, have a lot to answer.

You can start by showing you're not a fraud by taking responsibility for your own intemperate remarks.

You're like a cornered animal on this one, man, and all of your squealing and squirming looks awfully bad.

repsac3 said...

"First, youe whole schtick is fraudulent, in that when you're called out for not supporting an assertion, you evade, obfuscate, and attack."

In a similar situation, you just get very, very quiet, I guess...

“This is especially pathetic since your whole line of attack last summer is that I had no facts to support my opinion. Double-standard, no?”

I can’t speak for Doc, but I don’t believe Obama shares the opinions of Wright because he’s never said similar things, and has in fact made statements that contradict Wright. Of course, I may be wrong, but since one cannot prove a negative (that is, that Obama does not believe these things), I’m satisfied to believe that Obama’s words & deeds on the issues support his contention that he does not share his pastor’s thinking, until such time as he does or says something to make me believe otherwise… You’re welcome to make up your own mind…

“Now, I don't think YOU know the meaning of words. For example, your twisting of words all around in your spin of what Wright said, this and that, right here in this post, is a question of semantics, i.e., anything of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.

This is your whole game, all the time, to twist words and meanings to fit what you want to believe, especially when you have no facts to support your case, like the present example. Like you're doing in response to my comments to the original post, "Obama's Pastor."”

Can you cite any specific examples of twisted words & meanings in Doc’s post, or are we just supposed to guess at what the fuck you may be talking about?

“All you're doing is dodging the issue. I didn't discuss John Kerry and I don't condone whatever Falwell or Robertson may or may not have said.”

Analogies really that unfamiliar to you, are they…? (And no, analogies are never perfect, but that does not mean they are not useful…) The crazy religious figures on the right have made statements at least as “controversial” as pastor Wright, and few on the right were willing to denounce or renounce them, either…

“So, first, to be seen yourself as not out of your mind, you first need to say that your point about Obama obviously not knowing about the sermons is insupportable. If you can do that, we can get back to a reasonable debate, because at this point, your way of argument is fraudulent, and I'm sure that hurts you to point it out, but that's why you raise the nutjob riposte.”

No, we raise it because you can be a real nutjob…

Is it possible that Obama knew that some folks had problems with a few of Wright’s sermons?

Sure… It’s quite possible… But I don’t see how that matters… Frankly, I don’t trust the judgment of the majority of Wright’s critics, and perhaps Obama felt the same way, and took the little bit of controversy as mumbling from the busybody class who have nothing better to do than complain about any little thing… Of course, I do not know for sure what Obama knew or what he thought about it…

The bottom line for me is, the man says he never heard anything like the snippets that you folks are ceaselessly pushing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I take him at his word. (& unlike Obama, I’m less troubled by the snippets, after hearing them in context, so it probably wouldn’t matter to me if Obama had said he was there when they were said… Though I would be more troubled to learn he’d lied, should anything like that ever come to light).

“Also, if you can concede about Obama's non-obviousness, I'd be glad to debate you on what Obama has said - that young Americans abroad can't be proud to say "I'm an American," as in San Antonio.

He did not say Bush, he said American. Sorry, but he does not think that one can be proud of America, and he did not specify a timeline, and you have no facts to disprove the point.”

Non-obviousness?
WTF?

------
After introducing “a child born tonight,” and speaking about things we (Obama supporters & Americans) believe about the life of this girl growing up in this country, continues:

“And if that child should ever get the chance to travel the world, and someone should ask her where she’s from, we believe that she should always be able to hold her head high with pride in her voice when she answers, “I am an American. That is the course we seek.”
--------

Perhaps it’s easy for you, Nero, but many of us are ashamed of our President and some of the things he’s done in our name. We know our country’s ideals are far better than those of man in the White House, and we want that to change. I’ll be glad to revisit this when the next Democrat takes office, to see what your Con compatriots have to say about their American pride, should they be as disappointed in the next President as we are in the current one.

There is a timeline, which should be obvious by the fact that he begins this section of the speech talking about a girl born tonight, and has her traveling the world & answering questions with pride. (He must be talking about the future, because a child born tonight would not be able to do those things for several years, at the earliest.)

If you see some other meaning in Obama’s words, perhaps you ought to more specifically explain your objections…

“Michelle Obama is a separate case altotogether, but she did enumerate a timeline, which she said was "her lifetime." Now based on that, I would not want her as a top personal advisor - as First Lady - in the White House. She does not love her country, can't be proud, in her own words, no matter how you try to change or shade her meaning, in other words, despite what semantic games you want to play with her statement.”

First off, allow me to point out that like Kerry, Fallwell, & Robertson, we were not discussing Michelle Obama, but her husband, and pastor Wright. (Or is it OK when you add characters to the mix, and only complain when others do so?)

Second, it was a gaffe, plain & simple… It was a poor choice of words, but many (including many Republicans) seem able to figure out what she meant, in context. I doubt it’s going to change any votes, and I don’t really think she meant it the way you think she did. Like it or not, the only folks who take Michelle’s quote as indicative of anything serious are conservative bloggers, some of whom have more problems with John McCain than Michelle Obama (though they will probably vote for McCain, anyway.)

“All of this, including Obama's refusal renounce Wright, completely disqualifies him as president.”

So you believe… But many folks disagree with you right now, and November is a long way away…

“Ninety-tow percent in Rasmussen said they did not approve of Reverend Wright. A majority in a CNN poll said that the Wright issue should be a major campaign focus.”

We’ll see… We’ll see…

“You can start by showing you're not a fraud by taking responsibility for your own intemperate remarks.”

Intemperate remarks?

“You're like a cornered animal on this one, man, and all of your squealing and squirming looks awfully bad.”

8>)

I just love when you get all smug like that, as though you’re the hottest shit in Blogtopia… It just gives me goose pimples… (…followed by laughing fits, of course…)

repsac3 said...

Just to clarify, before NeroCon makes an issue of it (& you know he would...)

When I said...

"We know our country’s ideals are far better than those of man in the White House, and we want that to change."

...I meant that our (next) President's ideals should be better, not that our country's ideals should be worse... (God help this land if our country's morality & ethics were reduced to the level of Bush's...)

Doctor Biobrain said...

Damn Donald, you sure do waste a lot of time without saying anything. Your first six paragraphs don’t say anything, but are instead pure attacks on me. And how have I twisted any words around? Examples please. I see no semantic arguments here.

By the seventh paragraph, you finally tried to make an argument, by suggesting that I said Obama didn’t know about the sermons. Where did you get that from? I never said anything like that. And Obama said in his recent speech on race that he HAD heard his pastor say controversial things he disagreed with. Why are you inventing stuff?

Regarding what Obama said in San Antonio, he NEVER SAID that you can’t be proud of America. Why do you keep inventing stuff? I’ll quote exactly what he said “And if that child should ever get the chance to travel the world, and someone should ask her where she is from, we believe that she should always be able to hold her head high with pride in her voice when she answers "I am an American." Can you please explain how that means that “that young Americans abroad can't be proud to say ‘I'm an American’”, as you suggested he said? It's a fact that many Americans aren't proud to say they're Americans because they're embarrassed by what our government has done; but that's separate from saying that American's can't be proud, as you suggested.

And here’s another quote from that same speech:
I owe what I am to this country I love, and I will never forget it. Where else could a young man who grew up herding goats in Kenya get the chance to fulfill his dream of a college education? Where else could he marry a white girl from Kansas whose parents survived war and depression to find opportunity out west? Where else could they have a child who would one day have the chance to run for the highest office in the greatest nation the world has ever known? Where else, but in the United States of America?

Yep, that sure sounds like a man who isn’t proud of his country, huh. Just like when he said “Can we send a message to all those weary travelers beyond our shores who long to be free from fear and want that the United States of America is, and always will be, ‘the last best, hope of Earth?' We say; we hope; we believe - yes we can.

Wow, what an embarrassing traitor! And in the same speech you keep misquoting, too! Rather than quoting any of this stuff, you rewrite what he said into sounding like he’s not proud to be an American. And you dare accuse anyone of being a fraud. For shame.

And I’ve never mentioned Michelle Obama, so how could I be playing “semantics games” about what she said? And as usual, you leave out the word “really” as in she is “really proud of her country,” which is different from whether she’s ever been proud. But when asked afterwards if she was proud of her country, she said “absolutely.” It’s obvious she wasn’t saying what you’re pretending she said. And for you to suggest that this means she “does not love her country” is simply obscene. You should be ashamed for inventing such things.

I’m not even going to mention the John Kerry thing again. My point was obvious and I don’t see why you keep mentioning it. You’re not even refuting anything I wrote when you reference him. In regards to Falwell and Robertson, it’s not enough that you don’t condone it. Do you denounce them for what they said, as well as all their supporters? Please answer this question.

Regarding Wright’s poll numbers, since when did conservatives become so poll-conscious? Fox News shows that 60% of Americans disapprove of Bush; do you think McCain should renounce him? CNN said 67% disapprove; that’s a supermajority. Beyond that, people know almost nothing of Wright, besides what the news media has quoted of him out of context. As I said in my post, I myself assumed Wright had said truly offensive things until I saw his sermons in context. Now I see that he wasn’t such a bad guy after all and I admitted that I had made a mistake about this.

Now could we please stop making this about me? Over half of what you wrote was attacking me directly, while you ignore almost everything I write. I continue to support my arguments every time, and then you proceed to ignore it and attack me. Great. But you should really think about leaving the insults behind and addressing my arguments. Just try it. Reply to this without insulting me.

Finally, I keep mentioning the “nutjob riposte” because you keep mentioning it. Besides, I’m being truthful, and by your standards, that means it’s not an insult. As you say, I just call ‘em like I see ‘em. You’re a nutjob. But that’s not part of my rebuttal. It’s a statement of fact that I include because you keep asking if I still think it’s true. Trust me, I do. But I won’t mention it again if you don’t.

Americaneocon said...

You're the worst, Dr. Biobrain. ROFLMAO!!

Like I said, you're cornered like a squealing polecat! Sure, parse words and statments all you want. It makes you look REALLY out of touch. In your world there's no such thing as inference, which is surprising, since you fancy yourself as such a powerful rationalist.

You say above, "It's a fact that many Americans aren't proud to say they're Americans because they're embarrassed by what our government has done; but that's separate from saying that American's can't be proud..."

So you concede my point, Americans are unprideful, but Obama doesn't say this is because of Bush. You've added that. Bush is evil, blah, blah, blah...

And adding "really" to Michelle Obama's assertion means exactly what? That she'd "really" be proud if Obama were elected? Michelle Obama is 44 years old, so her comment that she's never been proud of her country indicates that she could not be proud under every president going back to Lyndon Johnson! Yep, it's all Bush alright. LOL!

You're all smokescreen, Dr. Biobrain, a complete mountebank. Face it: You can't concede that your original post is a hack job AND that you're a HYPOCRITE when it comes to your own decision rules for argument. You'll avoid my assertion, but I'll prove it.

Let me remind you what you said last summer regarding my challenge to N=1:

"And seriously, do you really believe that quoting Bush's claim that he's visited thousands of familes is somehow proof of something? Do you believe everything he says? No. Then why are you accepting him at his word on this? And even if you do believe everything he says, why are you pretending that Bush's self-serving quote somehow serves as proof for people who don't believe him? Yet you cited it as if this was a fact which undermined N=1's argument."

And also:

"Your original rebuttal was to state as fact that Bush cares for the troops, as evidenced by meeting thousands of military families and this being the hardest part of his job. The Newsweek article did not establish those points as facts. It only established that people claimed these things .... This is a basic rule of debate: One person's assertions do not trump another's. And just like a court of law, you judge people based on the evidence they provide, not the evidence they say they can provide."

The link to my old blog and relevant blog post is at the bottom of this entry.

Now, back to the issue at hand: In your post here you say that Obama could not possibly believe in Reverend Wright's black national, blame America hatred. To quote you:

"I didn't want to watch any YouTube clips of him [Reverend Wright] 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..."

Why is it obvious? What evidence do you have that Obama doesn't "believe these things"? Why "are you accepting him at his word on this?" Do "you believe everything he says?"

This is what I asked you at the beginning of this thread, and all you've done is change the subject, obfuscate, demand definitions, and then once provided, prevaricate some more.

You claim to be one driven by exacting rules of logic - indeed, you've pumped up yourself as a paragon of incisive thought. For example, you claimed to be a master debater in comments to my post last summer. So, to use your own words, "just like a court of law, you judge people based on the evidence they provide..."

What evidence do you provide to support your contention that Obama "obviously" doesn't believe Wright's hatred? He attended Wright's sermons for 16 years, so that's not in doubt ... that's fact. Reverend Wright has said controversial things ... that's fact. But all we have are statements that Obama doesn't believe Wright's hatred, but to use your own word again, Obama's declarations are his own opinions, and do "not establish those points as facts."

Now, to use capital letters again, your CREDIBILITY is now completely DESTROYED as an honest antagonist.

Unless you concede that you do not have any proof for your claim that Obama doesn't believe Wright's evil denuncations of the U.S., then as I've said here, you're a complete fraud, quod erat demonstrandum.

Burkean Reflections

http://burkeanreflections.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-irrationalism-and-evasion-on-left.html

John of the Dead said...

Ahem. It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, the burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim. You claim that Sen Obama hates America. The onus is on you to prove it. Now, do so, or concede the point.

Donald Douglas said...

Nice try, "John of the Dead":

I've provided evidence of Obama's anti-American statements, which are there for the record as indicating young Americans cannot be proud, a point which Dr. Biobrain concedes in his last post to this thread.

In any case, while negative proofs are not normally used, they are deployed routinely in criminal cases, for example, the defense may argue:

"X is innocent because there is no (or insufficient) proof that X is guilty."

The burden of proof here is on Dr. Biobrain, who appeals to courtroom legal reasoning to make his case that an opinion can't be considered fact.

Again, in the post, Dr. Biobrain asserts "It's obvious Obama doesn't believe these things." He needs some type of evidence or data on what constitutes "obvious," as that word means that something's self-evident, manifest, or easily seen. Well, we need to see it, if Dr. Biobrain asserts it.

If he rejects this point, it's one more example of his COMPLETE and UTTER hypocrisy.

I restate my call for a concession, Dr. Biobrain.

John of the Dead said...

It is logically impossible to prove a negative.* In fact, the "negative proof" is a logical fallacy, and your insistence upon on proves your idiocy. In your "example," you only listed an inability to prove a positive. That is NOT equal to a proof of a negative. We're not dealing in a court of law, here, where the presumption is innocence.** This is a logical proof. Either Sen Obama hates America, or he does not. You are claiming he does. Therefore, the burden of proof lies upon you. If there is, as you claim, ample evidence to support this claim, it should be utter simplicity for you to provide a quote. Please, no links to ambiguous events - just a simple copy-and-paste of the quotation, with attribution of the source (for verification). If YOU cannot make the proof, you must concede.

* The closest you can logically come to proving a negative is to prove A) that two events are mutually exclusive, and B) that the opposite event *did* occur. However, this is not the case for this instance.

** Even if this were a legal proceeding, the burden of proof would still be upon you, the accuser, under the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt by a preponderance of the evidence.

Americaneocon said...

"John of the Dead":

I see you're Dr. Biobrain's proxy. Fine, I'll continue along until he comes back, and both of you will look completely hypocritical in the meantime.

There's no "idiocy" on my part. Frankly, I'm just working through all the angles, of which both Dr. Biobrain and yourself are unable to handle.

Indeed, I've got you both so flummoxed you're both left limp with the "burden shifting" argument, which itself violates accepted norms of debate.

I'll explain why, in a moment. Note, first, that, of course, I'm not trying to "prove a positive." I'm not trying to prove anything. It's Dr. Biobrain's post, and he ought to defend it himself, for God’s sake, not to mention the sake of maintaining at least a shred of credibility. Dr. Biobrain states at the post that Obama's beliefs about Reverend Wright are "obvious."

Here's the quote again:

"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, all I ask here is why is it obvious? Again, WHY is it "obvious?" That's all I ask. Explain. I understand his silence, of course. Dr. Biobrain, for all self-fancying rhetorical gifts, can't get out of this jam - can't answer for himself - and thus has conceded the point BY DEFAULT, just like a no-show at a sports tournament. One has to engage a contest to win it, and Dr. Biobrain's out to lunch. QED! And LOL!!

Still, let me just define "obvious" again very clearly, and show - once and for all - that if Dr. Biobrain cannot defend the use of the term, then he's truly fraudulent in his posting, with absolutely no integrity whatsoever (something that's common sense, looking at the content here, but of course needs to be elaborated for the benefit of all).

"Obvious" is an adjective that describes something that's easily or readily seen. Something that's obvious in universally recognized, that is, manifest. In other words, something that's obvious is open to knowledge, it is FACTUAL. Thus, when something's obvious, it's self-evident, for all to see, unequivocally.

So, to summarize Dr. Biobrain's claim on Obama position, its "easily seen," "manifest," "universally recognized," "open to knowledge, like "a FACT." Indeed, when something's "obvious" it's "SELF-EVIDENT," as in EVIDENTIARY. But to be clear, Dr. Biobrain says, in essence, it's plain to see, like a piece of EVIDENCE in broad daylight, in this case that Obama is sure on his position regarding Wright's views.

So, once again, I ask, as I have all along, Dr. Biobrain, "Why is it obvious?"

The question's posed just like in the beginning comment here, where I called out Dr. Biobrain for his utter contempt of rational consistency. No, Dr. Biobrain style of logic is, I would argue, intellectually sleazy. It's a simple question, which deserves a simple answer. So again, Dr. Biobrain, wherever you are: Why is it "obvious?" Something that's obvious is a fact, and one wouldn't assert the existence of such unless that person was rationally or psychologically impaired, and such a situation would simply be a monumental disaster - even fatal - for someone trying desperately to win in debate.

That's all I ask, "Why is it obvious...?"

Still, to be a good sport, and I'll now address the point about burden shifting that "John of the Dead" raised, which is a shift in argumentation that, frankly, shows a mastery of abject and totally pathetic evasion and prevarication, to be perfectly honest. I personally find myself above such contemptible tactics, but I'll indulge an explanation of the hopeless problem here, just in case old "fuzzy logic" Biobrain does come back to try to rescue his honor.

"John of the Dead," or Dr. Biobrain, attempting to shift the burden here's a violation of the norms civilized debate (Dr. Biobrain's not civilized, or his views, I should say, but at least he'll have the edification of my elucidation). You see, in debate, the one who first proposes a claim has the burden to demonstrate its validity. In this case, Dr. Biobrain's stated a fact in evidence - Obama's beliefs - to which he must prove to be true, or else he'll lose the round. In other words, in a rational exchange the HIGHER BURDEN OF PROOF rests with the propagator of a claim, in this case Dr. Biobrain. Thus, Dr. Biobrain's committing the logical fallacy of assuming something's true (Obama's obviousness) simply because it hasn't been proven false. Indeed, Dr. Biobrain's negated any claim to any argument stating the illogic of proving a false positive, for he himself said it's obvious what Obama believes, and if that's not the case, that Obama's obviousness can't be verified, then the initial argument at the post is entirely bogus, and frankly, sickly irrational!!

So, in sum, the higher - no, ultimate - burden rests with Dr. Biobrain. I castigate him, in fact, for disastrously positing a claim argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Not only that, what's sad about this, is Dr. Biobrain, and actually "John of the Dead" here, have both also committed that logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem: Dr. Biobrain by calling me a "nutjob," rather than making a principled deductive case, and "John of the Dead" by alleging "idiocy," which is the plural noun of "idiot," which is to call someone as suffering from the state or condition of being an idiot. That's a really bad logical fallacy, of course, as folks who engage in name-calling reveal a near total inability to evaluate a line of argument or statement of rhetorical proof. I mean, come on, attacking the character of a person who has stated an idea - in this case the explication of Dr. Biobrain's deployment of "obvious" - rather than the idea itself is completely bereft of decency or internal consistency. Against the man arguments, indeed, are pretty juvenile, illustrating the low-level functioning of the unmaturated brain. In debate, it's not important who makes an argument - like an "idiot" - but the substance of an idea or query - like "why is it obvious?"

In any case, if one looks at Dr. Biobrain's line of response since my initial query - "why is it obvious?" - his line of prevarication is the classic use of the old RED HERRING, which, of course, is the slimy debating technique of introducing irrelevant facts or claims to distract from the question at hand. Indeed, most of this thread's been Dr. Biobrain's, with a last minute nudge for "John of the Dead," bid of legerdemain to completely avoid answering one simple question: Why is it obvious that Obama believes what he does?

So in conclusion, "John of the Dead," can you pass along the message to Dr. Biobrain when you see him? The good doctor's completely hypocritical, a totally, unambiguously unreconstructed mountebank, and that, my friend, is obvious.

John of the Dead said...

"Why is it obvious? Do you have evidence that Obama doesn't believe these things?"

It's technically impossible to prove that Sen Obama does not hold those beliefs, as I explained. However, I can prove the mutually exclusive contapositive. Behold:

"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."

And later:

"Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country."

Complete with source citation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html

There's your proof. You really suck at this. And, by the way, that's not an ad hominum attack. That's an insult. If it were an ad hominum attack, I would just call you an idiot and ignore your argument. I've torn your "argument" to shreds, and *then* insulted you. It seems like you once read something about debating techniques, and have just appropriated some of the big words you liked. (Again, that's an insult. Learn the difference.) Now, you must either A) prove a mutually exclusive contrapositive or B) concede.

Americaneocon said...

Well, Biobrain, you simply just use whatever debating trick you can think of. You're cornered and you resort to names. What's funny is I know these big words, and you're left to call me stupid.

Not good, man. Funny though.

I'll indulge you, again, to indicate that you're a hypocrite. I've defined obvious every which way from Sunday, and you can't escape your own statments.

First, I already proved this debate is not now - I repeat - not about proving a negative (a point I don't concede, anyway, but hold off on that).

You've simply got to defend your use of obvious. I've already defined the word, but you won't defend it. Very poor argumentation, especially with the ad hominems. But I'll quote:

"'Obvious' is an adjective that describes something that's easily or readily seen. Something that's obvious in universally recognized, that is, manifest. In other words, something that's obvious is open to knowledge, it is FACTUAL. Thus, when something's obvious, it's self-evident, for all to see, unequivocally.

You don't dispute this definition and elaboration. You evade it. I'm not asking for a proof, again, of a negative, I'm asking why is it obvious what Obama believes?

You've said in earlier debates that an opinion can't be fact, so by stating that's it obvious what Obama knows, by using your own debating rules, you've proved yourself illogic and irrational.

That you cannot escape. It's demonstrated. Your post on Obama's a fraud, because by your own argument, it either can't be proved (not fact) or it is fact (obvious). Reminds me when I was little and I used to play Twister. You're now bending over backwards to avoid not looking like a complete fool (that is what you're doing, which an observation, not an ad hominem, which is ticklish, in any case).

I can also say, nevertheless, that you've also got yourself in a bind on the negative proof thing. There's an exception to the logical rule that you're abjectly refusing to acknowledge, frankly because it proves even more decisively that you're a complete mountebank.

Recall the argument on criminal case law, which provides the exception to the negative proof rule: Legal systems allow the use of negative proofs because they have to show a defendant is not guilty. In other words, they have to prove a negative. The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, and without that, the defendant can't be found guilty.

Normally we wouldn't apply it to your case, but you yourself have repeatedly insisted on strict legal argumentation, to which I quote: "One person's assertions do not trump another's. And just like a court of law, you judge people based on the evidence they provide, not the evidence they say they can provide."

Okay, your words, "just like a court of law." You appeal to a legal standard in debate. In fact to quote you again, "Do you believe everything he says? No. Then why are you accepting him at his word on this?"

Those are your own "rules of debate," as you call them, but you now discard them when they prove you wrong.

You've only got yourself to blame. Nobody else can get you off the hook. I mean look at the juicy irony of it all. The very logic you've used in the past has utterly impugned anything you say here attempting to squeeze out your bind. You try, like a greasy polecat, but it's no good. You're stuck with your own words.

You really ought to just call it a day and concede, because the more you quote Obama, the deeper your bind gets. It's either obvious - a fact - what he knows or it's not. And if it is known, we couldn't use it anyway, because you say an opinion can't be used as fact. Delicious, and that's not even reminding you of your previous insistence on the legalization of decision rules.

Are you going to call me names now, like a schoolboy. That's childish, man. Face it you're cooked.

Time to concede, "John of the Dead."

John of the Dead said...

To begin, I think you're confused at to with whom you're arguing. I'm not Biobrain. And knowing terms just means you have access to a dictionary or Wikipedia. Your failure to apply basic logic belies your idiocy.

"I'm not asking for a proof, again, of a negative, I'm asking why is it obvious what Obama believes?"

You have the reading comprehenion of a rock. You ask for proof that Sen Obama disagrees with Rev Wright. Once again, behold:

"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."

Are you that stupid? Really? It cannot be more obvious. It's right there, in black and white. Sen Obama disagrees with Rev Wright's remarks. Period. QED. I will now accept your concession. Thanks for playing!

Furhermore, this:

"Recall the argument on criminal case law, which provides the exception to the negative proof rule: Legal systems allow the use of negative proofs because they have to show a defendant is not guilty. In other words, they have to prove a negative. The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, and without that, the defendant can't be found guilty."

This betrays a fundamental disconnect with reality. Are you so ignorant that you do not realize that US jurisprudence is based up on the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence"? If those words are too big for you, I'll translate. It means that the prosecution must prove guilt, and the defense need not "prove" innocence, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you worte. More to the point, the prosecution must prove a posiive - that the defendant *did* commit a criminal act. The defense need not prove the negative, that the defendant did not commit a criminal act. It can offer mutually-exclusive contrapositive proof (for example, that the defendant was in a different location at the alleged time of the crime), but it cannot directly prove the defendant's innocence. It's why we designed our leagal system the way we did - it's the only wasy to remain consistent with logical principles. If you don't realize that, you really are stupid. (Again, that's an insult, not an ad-hominum attack. Can you see the difference yet, retard?)

Let me give you an example. I claim that you fuck goats. Unless you can prove that you do not fuck goats, you will be forever branded as a goat-fucker. Now, prove that you don't fuck goats. Good luck with that, you damn, dirty goat fucker.

Americaneocon said...

Ha! This is making me laugh, and I mean total GUFFAW!!

You're not Dr. Biobrain. LOL!!

Oh, yeah, I noted that last night. The old doc's too dumbfounded to come out and play, so now he's got some proxy to make his case for him, pathetically, I might add.

ROFLMAO!!

This really is getting fun.

As for the legal case, you just confirmed my logic. Look, there may be some cases in which a reversed burden of proof is okay. You noted the example yourself: The "prosecution must prove guilt, and the defense need not "prove" innocence, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you" wrote (and I had to do some fancy editing there, because you're so inflamed, "John of the Dead," you can't write half worth a damn).

Still, as you concede, there's a legal presumption of innocence, which is specifically intended, obviously (to use Biobrain's word) to protect the liberty of those accused. Spin it how you want, but the DEFENSE can argue his client's innocent in the absence of proof to the contrary. This is exactly the exception I noted, and it's just pissing you off that you can't get around it, which has you so frustrated you're left - again! - with nothing but four-letter expletives.

Not good man! And remember, Dr. Biobrain claims court of law argumentation, so if that's not applicable now, then his case from last summer's out the window. If one goes back to look at that thread, I prevailed in the final analysis, because, I turned the tables in using Dr. Biobrain's own logic against him, but all he could do was cry, "it's moot, it's moot, can't you see, I won. Whaaahhhh Ahhhh!!!"

What a total hypocritical baby. Repsac3's gone back to look at the debate, so he can provide third-party verification of my point.

One can't have it both ways and think they're winning a debate. Dr. Biobrain's ineluctibly cornered (my words, no dictionary).

But I'll note another of your logical fallacies, right off the top of my head, no dictionary, or whatever you think I'm using. You're arguing, "John of the Dead" ad nauseum, which is the popular abbrieviation of argumentum ad nauseum, which means arguing a point to death.

I'm going to use capitals to illustrate your logic, so don't let your tender sensibilities get any more inflamed: When you argue ad nauseum, which, one more time (so it sinks into some thickness over there), it is arguing a point over and over again, using repetition to make a point (again and again) it's like raising your voice at someone MISTAKENLY THINKING THAT INCREASES THE POWER OF THE ARGUMENT. Actually, once you made your case with all the Obama quotations, once is enough. SO FOR YOU TO KEEP ARGUING THE SAME POINT OVER AND OVER IS LIKE YELLING IN MY FACE, and no matter how many times you insist on your point, IT WILL NOT BECOME ANY MORE CORRECT THAN WHEN YOU FIRST MADE THE CASE.

Am I making myself clear? Do you get it? Dr. Biobrain himself has insisted that a person's statement is just an opinion, but still, you, as Dr. Biobrain's proxy, insist on quoting Obama, AD NAUSEUM, in thinking that this proves the point that's its obvious what he believes about Wright. But again, using Biobrain's own decision rules, this is impossible.

Go get Dr. Biobrain, God, because you're not doing a damn bit of good defending him - indeed, both of you are looking completely - and I mean totally, dude - intellectually pale!

I mean, the point Dr. Biobrain made, as well as "John of the Dead" here, is fundamenally an argument of unsubstantiation. If Dr. Biobrain say that it's obvious what Obama's views are, we'd need to substantiate the point based on the assertion, Dr. Biobrain's, that that evidence exists. But Biobrain has ruled that an opinion cannot be held as fact, so he must have some data of differential and completely independent substantiation.

In other words, it does nothing more than make you look like a fool in defending Dr. Biobrain by providing more Obama quotes. These cannot be used to prove Obama's views.

Therefore, Dr. Biobrain's orginal argument - at the blog post here - based on his own decision rules of argumentation, is completely fraudulent and irrational.

I'd rest my case there, "John of the Dead," but Dr. Biobrain's not come out to concede, and frankly, I've got more logical rebuttals to all of Dr. Biobrain's and your intellectual incoherence.

It's getting kind of sad for you both. The use of profanity is an instant clue that an interlocutor's run out of ammo. I mean, even a little kid on the street knows that when the bully starts spouting four-letter words, hey, it's over. Time call it a day, this boy's spent.

Don't you agree? It's so obvious!

So you and Dr. Biobrain will just have to call it a day. Can you say CONCESSION?

repsac3 said...

Geez, professor... I'm feeling left out, here... No replies for me?

ANC: "You say above, "It's a fact that many Americans aren't proud to say they're Americans because they're embarrassed by what our government has done; but that's separate from saying that American's can't be proud..."

So you concede my point, Americans are unprideful, but Obama doesn't say this is because of Bush. You've added that. Bush is evil, blah, blah, blah..."

Um, professor... Who heads our government (You know, the government that Bio says SOME Americans (not Americans, as a whole) are ashamed of, because of what they've done)? Does Bio (or Obama) really need to say Bush's name when discussing his policies for it to count, or should we expect a little knowledge of current events from the speech/blog consumer?

ANC: "And adding "really" to Michelle Obama's assertion means exactly what?"

It changes the statement from "not proud until now" (as you intimate) to "was always proud, but now more ("really" or "very" proud.") Words, even the little ones, whose job it is to intensify other words, mean things...

"That she'd "really" be proud if Obama were elected?"

I'm sure she would, but the point is that the addition of the word "really" means she was always proud, but is prouder now (It actually says nothing about how proud she may be in the future, but should Barack be elected, I'd bet she'd be really, really proud of this country... That is, still more proud of it than she is, currently.)

"Michelle Obama is 44 years old, so her comment that she's never been proud of her country indicates that she could not be proud under every president going back to Lyndon Johnson! Yep, it's all Bush alright. LOL!"

Maybe if you read along as you watch her actually say it, it'll cure you of the delusion that she said she was not proud of this country:

Breitbart.tv: Michelle Obama: ‘For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I Am Really Proud of My Country’: "'What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud.'"

Should there still be any confusion, here's a second video, where she clarifies it for the few who were having trouble comprehending:

Breitbart.tv: ‘I am Proud of This Country’: Michelle Obama Clarifies ‘First Time’ Remarks

ANC: "Let me remind you what you said last summer regarding my challenge to N=1:"

and a little yadda, to where you quote Bio saying "And even if you do believe everything he says, why are you pretending that Bush's self-serving quote somehow serves as proof for people who don't believe him?"

That's the money shot, my friend. Bio is saying he believes it is obvious that Barack does not share the views of his pastor. He is not claiming that anything Barack has said, or his (Bio's) beliefs about the obviousness of Obama's thoughts on the subject should be used as proof for you, or anyone else who does not believe him. The only person doing that seems to be you.

ANC: "What evidence do you have that Obama doesn't "believe these things"?"

This is where you request proof of a negative, which is impossible. No one can provide evidence conclusively proving what a person doesn't believe, any more that a person can provide evidence that proves you never opened a particular book on your bookshelf.

And permit me to slide down to the twisted statement that pulled me back into this fray:

""Recall the argument on criminal case law, which provides the exception to the negative proof rule: Legal systems allow the use of negative proofs because they have to show a defendant is not guilty. In other words, they have to prove a negative. The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, and without that, the defendant can't be found guilty."
---
Nevermind... John covered it better than I ever could've... After you provide the evidence that proves you've never fucked a goat, we'll discuss this line of bullshit further.

As this is long enough, I'll post before looking for any other loose ends that may've been missed. (Besides, it's lunchtime here in the East.)

repsac3 said...

While lunch is heating up in the microwave, I have to ask...

What kinda bumblefuck argument is it for you to accuse John of being Biobrain's sockpuppet? What would be the benefit for him, anyway? Is it not possible for several people to disagree with you at the same time?

If you read any other posts here, you might've noticed that Bio said he was going to attend a few events (intimating he wouldn't be posting, or at least leaving open the possibility of his not doing so.) He wasn't avoiding you; he was otherwise occupied.

Contrast that with your abandoning the threads no which we were discussing matters earlier in the week. I'm not gonna dig up the links, but one was on your blog, and then there was your foray onto mine...) You obviously have been online & posting, so why no replies, eh?

And, I wonder whether you intend on providing any evidence for either your "sockpuppet" or the "avoiding you" claims... (I tend to doubt it.)

Bell went off 30 seconds ago, & the smell is wafting into the office... I look forward to your reply, professor.

Americaneocon said...

Ha,voila! No sockpuppet?!!

Wow, you're slick, with an alibi too! You really do love that legalization of reasoning!

Anyway, the ball's in your court, Dr. Biobrian. I've already noted above your desperate deployment of the red herring. Go look what I wrote. That's done.

You've got no rejoinder that can get you out of this jam, and thanks to "John of the Dead" for clarifying your predicament even more!!

ROFLMAO!!

Now, as I noted, in the last two entries, "why is it obvious" Obama knows what he knows?

You're pinned like a greasy polecat. I've killed two birds with one stone. Obama's own quotes can't be used, like you've done, to prove what he feels about Wright.

Where's that concession, in any case, it's long overdue!

LOL!!

repsac3 said...

Are you avoiding me again, professor?

Using the word sockpuppet in your reply only indicates you read my posts, but does not constitute an answer to anything I said in them. Please try again.

signed:
Bio's left sock

(And you wonder why we think you a nutjob...?)

John of the Dead said...

"Look, there may be some cases in which a reversed burden of proof is okay."

No, there aren't. And really, you need to learn more about the argumentum ad naseum fallacy. First off, it has to be a *fallacious* argument. I'm simply pointing out how the US legal system works - innocent until proven guilty. PLEASE read that again. Innocent until proven guilty. Do you get that? GUILT must be proven. Not innocence. Why? Because it's logically impossible to prove a negative. Right, goat fucker?

Now, why is that not argumentum ad naseum? Because it's not fallacious. The burden of proof has been structured that way for hundreds of years. If you're going to keep using these terms, you need to stop committing these self-same fallacies. You keep getting these things wrong, over and over, meanwhile accusing those who correct you of the fallacy. Oh, the irony of it all!

Furthermore, how do you reconcile these two statements?

#1:
"Legal systems allow the use of negative proofs because they have to show a defendant is not guilty."

#2
"Still, as you concede, there's a legal presumption of innocence..."

If you cannot see how those two statements of yours are polar opposites, then I have to ask: Who's typing this for you? For that matter, who's reading it to you? The same home-nursing aide that cuts your food? You cannot claim one thing, be called out on it, reverse your position, and claim you were right all along. Do you not realize that your statements are still there for all to see? Does reality re-shape itself around you with each new moment? In your world, does gravity still exert itself perpendicular to the horizon? Am you no Bizarro?

"Actually, once you made your case with all the Obama quotations, once is enough."

Obviously not, since you apparently did not read it the first time. Let's go back to your original question, shall we?

"Why is it obvious? Do you have evidence that Obama doesn't believe these things?"

A statement from Sen Obama saying that he does not believe those things *IS* evidence that he doesn't believe those things. You might as well ask for evidence that he doesn't like "ZZ Top's Greatest Hits." It's a matter of his internal opinion. The only person who can answer that question is Sen Obama. He has. QED. You lose. Concede.

"The use of profanity is an instant clue that an interlocutor's run out of ammo."

Ah, yes, the old "Style Over Substance" fallacy. Ignore the argument and instead focus on the language. It's like a cherry on the sundae. Well, that's about what I would expect from a damn, dirty goat fucker. How did you even have time to post this, what with all that goat fucking you're doing? Unless you can prove you're not fucking goats, of course.

Americaneocon said...

"John of the Dead":

Ha, sorry, bud, I've got you on that one. The reasoning of a defense attorney is the exception, precisely. That line of argument is done.

And ad nauseum is exactly as I said: Once you made your case with the Obama quotes that's sufficient, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP YELLING IN MY FACE THINKING THAT'S GOING TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT MORE COMPELLING. It's not.

And to quote you:

"A statement from Sen Obama saying that he does not believe those things *IS* evidence that he doesn't believe those things. You might as well ask for evidence that he doesn't like "ZZ Top's Greatest Hits." It's a matter of his internal opinion. The only person who can answer that question is Sen Obama. He has."

Nope, check with Dr. Biobrain on that, which I've quoted above, and provided the links to the previous debate. Someone's statement is only an opinion, not a fact, and thus cannot provide proof of an assertion. We'd need independent confirmation, in other words real evidence.

Ask Dr. Biobrain.

You guys are a rolling me on the floor!!

repsac3 said...

ANC: “Let me remind you what you said last summer regarding my challenge to N=1:”

Then "yadda yadda yadda, all quoting Bio, including “And even if you do believe everything he says, why are you pretending that Bush's self-serving quote somehow serves as proof for people who don't believe him? Yet you cited it as if this was a fact which undermined N=1's argument."”

That there’s the money shot, professor. Last summer, you were using statements by Bush as evidence in support of an allegation you’d made, and Bio called you on it.

Bio is not offering you Obama’s statements as proof of anything. In fact, Bio hasn’t even made an allegation. All he’s done is offer his opinion as to whether Obama shares his pastor’s political/social beliefs that some have found controversial. He is not saying “This is why you should believe Obama, as concerns his pastor.” he’s saying “This is what I believe about Obama, as concerns his pastor.” Completely different.



ANC: “In your post here you say that Obama could not possibly believe in Reverend Wright's black national, blame America hatred.”

No, Bio says that he doesn’t believe Obama does share in those things, in very much the same way he opines that “guilt by association is a pile of crap.” While the “to me” is unstated, it’s implicitly implied. Let’s read it together:

Bio sez: “I didn't want to watch any YouTube clips of him [Reverend Wright] 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..."


To most, the “I believe” before “guilt by association” and the “to me” between “It’s obvious…” and “…Obama doesn’t believe these things.” is clearly implied in the context of what he’s saying.

It’d be like my saying, “You’re an asshole.” Am I stating a fact, or is the “I think…” before the words “you’re an asshole” implied, making this a clear statement of opinion?

While it becomes a little bit of circular reasoning, here’s a link to a page teaching kids how to distinguish statements of fact from statements of opinion: Skillswise printable factsheet: "What is fact and opinion?"

“What is a fact?
A fact is something that can be verified and backed up with evidence, e.g. In 2005, Brazil and FC Barcelona star Ronaldinho was named FIFA World Footballer of The Year. We can verify these details by looking at FIFA records.
What is an opinion?
An opinion is based on a belief or view. It is not based on evidence that can be verified, e.g. Wayne Rooney is the best football player in the English Premier League. Are there players in the English Premier League who are better than Wayne Rooney?
------------------------------

So, if Bio cannot back up his “obvious” claim, it is a statement of opinion, meaning there is no need for you to get so excited about his not proving it. As an opinion, it never was a statement in need of proof in the first place.

ANC: What evidence do you have that Obama doesn't "believe these things"? Obvious? Why "are you accepting him at his word on this?" Do "you believe everything he says?"


While Bio can offer you his reasons for holding the opinion that he does (your second two questions), he cannot prove that Obama doesn’t believe anything, because it’s impossible to prove a negative, as your goat-fucking experiences have no doubt illustrated. Further, as a statement of opinion, there’s no reason he should even try…

ANC: “So, to use your own words, "just like a court of law, you judge people based on the evidence they provide..."



What evidence do you provide to support your contention that Obama "obviously" doesn't believe Wright's hatred? He attended Wright's sermons for 16 years, so that's not in doubt ... that's fact. Reverend Wright has said controversial things ... that's fact. But all we have are statements that Obama doesn't believe Wright's hatred, but to use your own word again, Obama's declarations are his own opinions, and do "not establish those points as facts."



First off, Obama’s opinions on these subjects are antithetical to pastor Wright’s, and one may judge them as one will. But as John has pointed out, if one believes what Obama says, one cannot simultaneously believe that Obama agrees with Wright’s statements. The judging of that is up to the individual, however, and no one here is suggesting that Obama’s statements (or Wright’s statements) are facts, just because they said them. All who’ve quoted them are not offering them as facts, but as reasons underlying the opinion that Obama doesn’t share Wright’s sentiments. YMMV…

repsac3 said...

still ignoring the left sock...

I'm getting bummed...

repsac3 said...

“I've provided evidence of Obama's anti-American statements, which are there for the record as indicating young Americans cannot be proud, a point which Dr. Biobrain concedes in his last post to this thread.”

Since when is it anti-American to not be proud of one’s government? 
 I must’ve missed that memo…

(Please, don’t make me dig out the Right’s quotes about Clinton, and ask you whether those people were also anti-American, for not being proud of their government.)

ANC: “In any case, while negative proofs are not normally used, they are deployed routinely in criminal cases, for example, the defense may argue:



"X is innocent because there is no (or insufficient) proof that X is guilty."”

OK, if that’ll do it for you…

Barack Obama is innocent of sharing the beliefs of his pastor because there is no (or insufficient) proof that Barack Obama is guilty of sharing those beliefs.

Happy now? Is the case all proven, seeing as how you’ve already said you believe a statement such as this to be acceptable proof? Or are you now going to back away from that claim?

Here’s the thing, from my point of view (& if I may be so bold, from John & Bio’s, too) That isn’t an offer of proof, negative or otherwise. It’s a statement pointing out that the prosecution was unable to offer sufficient proof of a positive—that is, that someone actually did—or in this case, thought—something. Like it or not, the burden rests with the person alleging a positive act (or thought) to prove that positive act (thought) actually did take place. If they cannot, the defense wins. At no time is the defendant being accused of the act required to prove he didn’t do (or think) it. If the prosecution cannot prove he did, the accused is adjudicated not guilty.

repsac3 said...

I think the professor must be afraid of me, since he refuses to reply to my posts... It's not like he's off doing something else, obviously...

John of the Dead said...

Good God, you truly are that stupid, aren't you? You're not being deliberately obtuse; you're just dumb. Though I am encouraged that you've finally figured out that there's a difference between an insult and an ad hominum fallacy, you stupid goat fucker. Or do you let the goats fuck you, instead? I've heard conflicting reports. Well, until you can prove otherwise, I guess we can only assume both.

"Someone's statement is only an opinion, not a fact, and thus cannot provide proof of an assertion. We'd need independent confirmation, in other words real evidence."

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, goat fucker. Sen Obama's opinion about his own opinion is inadmissible because it's... opinion? Is that right? In other words, you have arbitrarily disallowed the *ONLY* possible source for an answer to your question? In other other words, you've established a non-falsifiable statement, which, as I'm sure you're aware with you vast knowledge of debating terms, non-falsifiable statements cannot be logically debated. So you set the situation up for failure regardless of position. Great job, goat fucker!

Now, what would *you* consider to be "real evidence" about someone's opinion? Keeping in mind, of course, that their own opinion doesn't count. Or something. Your convolutions are hard to keep straight. Though, with all your goat fucking, you're obviously far from straight, so I suppose that's to be expected.

Oh, and don't think I haven't noticed your shifting goalposts. Your original claim was that Sen Obama's opinion wasn't "obvious." When it was pointed out that it was, insofar as his statement of his opinion was readily available to anyone with access to Google, you decided to start arguing the inability to prove opinions. You've lost this argument, again and again.

"I think the professor must be afraid of me, since he refuses to reply to my posts... It's not like he's off doing something else, obviously..."

Silly. He's busy with all the goat fucking. Unless, of course, he can prove otherwise.

And, really, this guy is a professor? Seriously? Of what? Heaven have pity on the students forced to study under this intellectual Lilliputian.

Americaneocon said...

Well, "John of the Dead," you're getting to be not so great of a proxy after all.

You're attacking Dr. Biobrain's logic, not mine. I've already cited that earlier debate, but let me repost it:

"I see no deep analysis here, though. Looks like you can't stand liberals and have to rely on citing one liberal's opinion to pretend as if this is somehow representative of the left.

And seriously, do you really believe that quoting Bush's claim that he's visited thousands of familes is somehow proof of something? Do you believe everything he says? No. Then why are you accepting him at his word on this? And even if you do believe everything he says, why are you pretending that Bush's self-serving quote somehow serves as proof for people who don't believe him?"

And Biobrain continues, about what N=1 believed or didn't believe:

"I can claim to have sources showing that Bush hates the troops, but I'm sure you'd wait to see the proof before believing me. This is a basic rule of debate: One person's assertions do not trump another's. And just like a court of law, you judge people based on the evidence they provide, not the evidence they say they can provide.

But regardless of that, even if you were to establish that he really did meet with these families, it is impossible to establish that he really cares about them. You can choose to believe that if you want, and N=1 can choose not to. She could believe that he only met them for political purposes and didn't really want to do it. Or she could believe that he met with them to secretly gloat over their son's demise. These are called opinions and are not refutable."

That's Dr. Biobrain's argument, and he needs to stick to it in the present debate.

The old blog is here: Burkean Reflections.

Now, you can choose to believe that Obama's got good thoughts about the country, or that he loves ZZ Top, or whatever, but that's just an opinion, not refutable, according to Dr. Biobrain's logic.

You don't like it, I see, but I do! LOL!

Keep cussing and attacking, because the more everyone gets involved, it just shows, frankly, that I'm the only one with any lucidity left around here!!

Swweeettt!!! Hooah!!

Now, step aside "Johnny" boy.

Back to Dr. Biobrain, you there? Opinion versus fact, remember? To quote you:

"I failed to see why Obama should be held responsible for what his pastor said. It's obvious Obama doesn't believe these things..."

I'd say you'd need - based on your own logic - to offer up that concession!

Explain. Please. Or. You'll. Look. Even. More. Foolish.

Either that, or you really ought to get a better sockpuppet. Ha!!

John of the Dead said...

Answers are getting lost behind your hand-waving bullshit, so let's go back to square one. Now, what, exactly, are you asking/claiming, goat fucker?

repsac3 said...

Blogger: User Profile: Donald Douglas: "Donald Douglas"

repsac3 said...

Professor NeroCon: As I've said elsewhere, I cannot force you to reply to my comments in these blog posts. All I can do is point it out when you don't, and leave it to those who read our words to speculate as to why you refuse to reply...

Americaneoocon said...

Conservation of enemies, Repsac3, a basic principle of international strategy.

I've got two opponents, who, while struggling, are "obviously" not down (well, "John's" pretty much spent, actually, after being assualted with Biobrain's own whacked logic).

Besides, what are you, an attention hog? I had a whole post yesterday, plus more planned, devoted just to you!

As soon as Dr. Biobrain concedes that'll free up resources to open up a new front.

repsac3 said...

You've gotta be shittin' me... You're telling me that you're not replying to my posts because Bio's out there somewhere--not posing, but perhaps ready to--and you have to save your energy in case he does actually say anything today?

This is the same Bio that you were up until recently accusing of being John, under another name (meaning only two "enemies"--Bio/John & me--if one is to take any of this shit seriously...)

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

Whatever, Nero... Get back to me when the delusions subside...

John of the Dead said...

Now, why are you ignoring such a simple question, goat fucker? I'll repeat it, so as to remove the cloud of bullshit obfuscation behind which you're trying to hide:

What, exactly, are you asking/claiming in re: Sen Obama's views on Rev Wright? You've shifted positions, arguments, and approaches in every response thus far. Let's see where you stand, goat fucker.

Americaneocon said...

Repsac3: Who knows what's up with "John of the Dead"? You have no more clue than I do, unless you've got a sockpuppet yourself! Not the best you could do, I'd wager, if true.

The fact is, I've got to deal with two arguments simultaneously, and you're calling me stupid? So, far, I'm kicking butt in this exchange. "John" is done. I'm waiting now for Biobrain's concession.

You must've had really bad luck locating those book sources, but I agree with what you said on my page: You do need help learning how to blog about politics.

Be nice, now, boys! LOL!!

repsac3 said...

I stand by what I wrote in my last message...

I'd ask you what you're talking about Re: "I agree with what you said on my page: You do need help learning how to blog about politics.", but I'm still patiently waiting for you to answer John's question, and wondering why you're not...

(Perhaps you forsee the possibility of another lefty blogger joining the fray, and you're conserving your energy in case s/he posts by not answering John anymore, either...)

What, exactly, are you asking/claiming in re: Sen Obama's views on Rev Wright?

You don't have to answer me, but perhaps you might answer John...

John of the Dead said...

At this point, it's patently obvious that the goat fucker has no point at all. He has refused to answer the question. Goat fucker, I accept your concession.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Forty comments?!? Jesus christ, people, I haven't had this kind of comment action since...ever! Man, I get busy for two days and look what this comes down to. "Goat fucker"?? Wow, I can't wait until I have the time to read through all this. Sounds like y'all have had a pretty exciting time without me.

repsac3 said...

Cut Goat fucker some slack... He's been busy not answering you, and editing my comments on his blog... Wingnuts & Moonbats: AmericanNeoCon edits me out. (More evidence that he fears me...)

Now that Bio's back, he can not answer his comments, as well...

And yet, he'll still insist on his victory...

Nutjob.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Ok Donald, looks like you didn’t like my challenge for you to reply to me without insults. “Squealing polecat?” I’m not even sure what a polecat is, and don’t think I’ve ever squealed in my life. I really don’t have the voice for that kind of thing.

As for “unprideful” Americans, yes I concede your point that there are some Americans who aren’t proud to admit they’re Americans when they’re overseas and that Obama was acknowledging this fact and saying how he’d like to make sure that no longer happens. You really got me there, smart guy. I don’t know why I ever pretended these people didn’t exist or that Obama was bad for suggesting it was true. You win that point. You’re a smarter man than I.

As for adding “really” to Michelle’s comment, sorry, but I’m not the one who did that. She did; and you’re the one who keeps excluding it. And the difference is clear: “really” is an adverb, which serves to add extra emphasis to the word following it. For example, if someone says “Today is the first day it was really cold” they’re not saying it hadn’t been cold before that; merely that it hadn’t been as extra-cold as it had been that day. Similarly, Michelle didn’t say she hadn’t ever been proud, but only that she hadn’t been “really” proud, and she only said it once. And when asked about it, she stated that she “absolutely” is proud of America.

And if you don’t think the word “really” makes a difference, why do you continue to exclude it every time you paraphrase what she said? And if you don’t think it matters that she said she “absolutely” is proud of her country, then why do you continue to pretend she didn’t say it? Words mean things, and for you to continue to paraphrase what she said instead of quoting the actual words, it’s almost as if you’re trying to deceive people. And you don’t want to deceive anyone, do you?

Just to help you out, I’ll take one of your wrong quotes and add the word “really” and you’ll see what I mean. “Michelle Obama is 44 years old, so her comment that she's never been really proud of her country indicates that she could not be really proud under every president going back to Lyndon Johnson!” If you don’t see the difference between that and what you wrote, then you shouldn’t have a problem remembering to include the word. I mean, it’s what she said. And you do want to write what she said, right?

And why are you using Michelle’s words as evidence against what Barack said? Michelle is not Barack. Perhaps you and your wife agree on everything, but I’ve known few couples who do. Similarly, large numbers of Catholics strongly disagree with their church on big issues, yet they continue to attend all the same. Believe it or not, but people can disagree and still be friends. But all the same, Michelle didn’t say anything wrong; even if she could have picked her words slightly better.

And could you please give even one example where I’ve changed any subject, obfuscated anything, demanded ANY definition, or prevaricated during this discussion? In my last response, everything I wrote directly addressed what you wrote, point by point. Your insistence that we’ve had any sort of semantics debate is quite odd. But again, if you have examples of this, please give them. Somehow, you guys always seem to be a little short on realworld proof of anything you claim. Why, I bet we even agree on the meaning of the words “really” and “absolutely,” which is why you have to keep pretending Michelle didn’t say these things.

And your repeated mention of N=1 is entirely pathological. But if you want to have fun with our N=1 one debate, I’ll reverse it on you. You INSISTED that Bush’s claim to care about the troops was a fact. Well, Obama says America is a great nation. Michelle said she “absolutely” was proud of her country. Don’t these count as facts in your book? Please answer this point and don’t obfuscate. Or you can act as you say I do, but that would make you a hypocritical obfuscater.

But as for my defense, it’s simple: You were treating Bush’s assertion as if it was a proven fact which disproved N=1’s argument. I haven’t done that with you. You keep paraphrasing Wright, Barack, and Michelle in ways that make them look bad, while I give quotes in context to show that you’re misrepresenting what they said. But I’m not suggesting that any of these statements are proven fact, as you did with Bush. How could I? I’m merely relying upon Barack’s repeated statements of how he loves our country as support of my opinion that it’s true. Just as you use paraphrased snippets of what he said to suggest otherwise. And while one of us is providing more proof than the other, it’s impossible to state any of this as fact; just like I’ve always said.

BTW, the idea that Wright “has said controversial things” is subjective, not fact. That depends on the listener. While you might think it’s controversial to say that Americans have killed innocent people in the middle-east, someone else might think it’s not controversial at all. And a third person might think Wright is too tepid and isn’t damning enough. Controversy is in the eye of the beholder. It’s an opinion; not fact.

I know you never really understood the difference between fact and opinion, but it’s still opinion. And there’s nothing wrong with opinions. I’ve never understood why you imagine that opinions are bad or invalid, as they’re not. My favorite color is blue. That’s an opinion and it’s totally true. And if I always tell people that and often wear blue things, and someone said “It’s obvious Biobrain’s favorite color is blue” are you going to doubt it? That’s all I’ve done. I’ve never suggested I had “proof” that Obama loves our country, or think I can disprove your opinion of Obama. All I can do is cite his words and go from there. While you can’t cite any words which suggest he doesn’t love our country and have to paraphrase what other people say to try to make him look bad.

Is it a “fact” that Obama is a patriotic American? Of course not. Just like it’s not a fact that YOU’RE a patriotic American. That can’t be a fact. It’s an opinion. But if we’re going to base our opinions on something, they should be based upon a full picture and not paraphrased snippets. But again, there’s nothing wrong with opinions. Opinions can be truthful too. They just can’t be proven. And as we’ve seen with you, they can also be incredibly wrong; even if they can’t be proven wrong.

BTW, I can’t believe you actually thought I’d change my name and writing style to continue the debate. How on earth would that make any sense? I know that you’re of the opinion that there are no sensible liberals, but please. That was just dumb.

Oh, and I do like the goat fucker references. I won’t pretend to have read everything here, but skimming it has gotten me a big laugh. Besides, John really does think you get screwed by goats, so by your standard, it must be true…and factual. But don’t mind that and continue to insult me. It’s the closet you’ve come yet to proving your point, as your arguments are quite lousy. I always get a big kick out of reading your insults; if only because you continue to believe you don’t insult people. The absurdist declarations of victory are also pretty funny too.

BTW, I've been quite busy lately doing tax returns and will be attending the county convention on Saturday, which hopefully will take me all day. So try not to declare victory just because I don't respond immediately.

Americaneocon said...

Doing your taxes is no excuse for failing to engage, or for offering more evasions, obfuscations, and prevarications.

But I'll use your own words, again, to get you to answer the original question of this thread, Dr. Biobrain. You say here:

"But if you want to have fun with our N=1 one debate, I’ll reverse it on you. You INSISTED that Bush’s claim to care about the troops was a fact."

I did, and I've shown that by your own logic in that debate that you're a total hypocrite and mountebank. So, I'm throwing your own words back at you again:

You INSIST here that it's obvious what Obama knows, this his knowledge about the Wright sermons is a fact, open for all to see, i.e., manifest. As your own words show, you cannot evade this point without being seen as completely fraudulent.

I've already addressed the burden of proof issue with "John." The ball's entirely in your court, as you indicate right here. The burden of proof lies with the propagator of the initial claim. The rest is more red herring fallacies.

As for the polecat, it's a decription of your behavior: You're pinned into a corner and you're unable to extricate yourself.

I'm frankly just waiting for your concession. The more you go on, the more permanently you hammer yourself down.

John of the Dead said...

Now, why are you ignoring such a simple question, goat fucker? I'll repeat it, so as to remove the cloud of bullshit obfuscation behind which you're trying to hide:

What, exactly, are you asking/claiming in re: Sen Obama's views on Rev Wright? You've shifted positions, arguments, and approaches in every response thus far. Let's see where you stand, goat fucker.

John of the Dead said...

Oh, by the way, since it's obvious that the goat fucker doesn't know what words mean and uses them based simply on phonetic preferences, a polecat is a skunk. Though they seldom squeal.

Jjohn of the Dead said...

Sorry for comment spamming, but am I the only one who's getting a Monty Python Black Knight vibe from the goat fucker?

"I'm invincible!"

"Your arms's off."

"No, it's not."

repsac3 said...

This is going to have to end in a stalemate, because it seems that Neo cannot see that both his burden of proof & his inability to tell statement of fact from statements of opinion make continuing moot.

That's not to say you folks (& I, should Neo ever choose to reply to me -- I know... Conservation of enemies, or whatever) need to stop... There are still plenty of things we haven't called each other yet, and I'm not convinced that Neo has declared victory quite enough, as yet...

repsac3 said...

You ain't shittin' John...

YouTube - Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight

Doctor Biobrain said...

Uhm, Donald. I’m a CPA. These aren’t my taxes I’m doing. They’re my clients’ and this is tax season. Sorry I can’t spend more time playing with you, but I do have a business to run here.

Regarding what you wrote, I have no idea what you just said. I said it’s obvious that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor, as he has repeatedly said things that are contrary to what his pastor said and has explicitly stated that he disagreed with his pastor on numerous issues; just as many religious people don’t agree with everything their leaders say.

But I never claimed this as factual proof of anything. Just as it’s obvious that my favorite color is blue, it’s obvious that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor. But neither statement can be stated as fact. These are my opinions backed by Obama’s statements; while you have opinions backed by your own paraphrased snippets of Obama’s statements. We cannot prove what Obama thinks about his country any more than you could prove what I think about the color blue.

And this is in line with what I’ve been saying since I had the misfortune of debating with you. We can’t know what Bush or Obama truly think, but can only base our opinions on what they say. And while you based your opinion of Bush on one self-serving statement he made; we have numerous statements from Obama suggesting that he loves his country, including multiple statements from a speech you’ve apparently seen online.

But by your standards, Bush’s claim to care for the troops is a proven fact. Similarly, Obama’s claim to not agree with his pastor is a proven fact; as is his claim to love his country. So it is you who has completely contradicted yourself; not me. If a person’s statement can be accepted as fact, as you’ve argued repeatedly, then you must admit that Obama loves his country and disagrees with his pastor.

And seeing as how you didn’t respond to anything else I wrote, I’ll take it as given that you have conceded defeat regarding our argument on “unprideful Americans,” Michelle Obama’s comments, and your insistence that we’ve had a debate on semantics. As it is, it looks like you’ve decided to reboot back to our N=1 debate for reasons that elude me. You lost that debate. You’re losing this debate. You have no point to stand on and keep undermining your own points.

Debating you isn’t like fighting Python’s Black Knight. At least the Black Knight had a torso to support him and allow him to headbutt Arthur. Donald, you’ve got nothing. You contradict the basis for your own arguments, don’t know what a fact is, and engage in every debate fallacy you falsely accuse of others. The only thing about you that’s consistent is your ability to claim victory with every comment. But I guess that’s really the foundation of your arguments: You’re absolutely convinced you’re right. You just need to figure out how.

repsac3 said...

I see that the fair professor hasn't been back in awhile...

Maybe he's doing his taxes...
(No, that would be no excuse...)

It couldn't be that he thinks he's lost the match... He's too egotistical for that...

He must be out in the goat pasture, again... A little "companionship," & he'll return to the fray, no doubt...

I bet you can't wait...

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biobrain says:

"Regarding what you wrote, I have no idea what you just said." I said it’s obvious that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor, as he has repeatedly said things that are contrary to what his pastor said and has explicitly stated that he disagreed with his pastor on numerous issues; just as many religious people don’t agree with everything their leaders say."

First, that's willful ignorance, or simply choosing not to acknowldege an argument that shows your own illogic.

But look at your quote here and the points I've made in a couple of times: By saying that it's "obvious" what Obama believes, you're inherently arguing a factual claim. I've given you the definition, but here it is again:

"'Obvious' is an adjective that describes something that's easily or readily seen. Something that's obvious in universally recognized, that is, manifest. In other words, something that's obvious is open to knowledge, it is FACTUAL. Thus, when something's obvious, it's self-evident, for all to see, unequivocally"

All you've done here is repeat what you've written at the post, which is a tautological fallacy. The more you continue the deeper you dig. You're like Alice in Wonderland, or something.

What's funny is that while I'm using your own argument against you, "John of the Dead" rejects your own logic, which is found from the N-1 debate on opinion:

"'Someone's statement is only an opinion, not a fact, and thus cannot provide proof of an assertion. We'd need independent confirmation, in other words real evidence.'

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, goat fucker. Sen Obama's opinion about his own opinion is inadmissible because it's... opinion? Is that right? In other words, you have arbitrarily disallowed the *ONLY* possible source for an answer to your question? In other other words, you've established a non-falsifiable statement, which, as I'm sure you're aware with you vast knowledge of debating terms, non-falsifiable statements cannot be logically debated. So you set the situation up for failure regardless of position. Great job, goat fucker!"

Based on your own commenter's line of argument, your whole of debate last summer was fallacious - but no matter, when the same line of argument is turned back to you - in your own posts - you disavow your prior thesis of opinion versus fact. That's fraudulent and unprincpled.

Still, and you can't get around this rationally, by using the word "obvious," you've asserted the de facto claim that Obama's knowledge can be known.

So you're reduced to restating what you orignally wrote, rather than tackling the epistomological basis for your claim.

It's either ovbious what Obama knows or it's not. If it's the later, you must retract your claim at the post, and thus it's entirely reasonable to suggest that Obama agrees when Wright says "God Damn America."

Now, coinincidentally, you've expanded your denials in a new post (so you can attempt to get away with name-calling), but you're excluding the context of the entire thread, particularly the reponses of "John," and that put you in a deeper corner:

Here's your comments from March 29, 2008,, where you say you're "dealing with a wacko":

"Not only is this guy accusing me of all the things he continues to do, but it's obvious that his entire debate schtick consists of him regurgitating material people have used effectively against him, but without him understanding what the words meant. Like when he continues to insist I'm playing games with semantics, when we haven't had any sort of semantic debate at all. It's obvious he just thinks that's some accusation you use against somebody when they won't agree with you. He also thought my use of the word "nutjob" to describe him in a non-debate setting consisted of an ad hominem argument. It took me awhile just to convince him it was a basic insult and nothing more. His arguments are bad enough as it is; ad hominem is the least of his worries."

I think you've declard victory a little soon, and your effort to get out from arguing ad hominem is silly.

Frankly, I'm having no problem deflecting your irrationalism. I concede nothing. I simply restate my case that you're pushing red herrings, and you've not addressed my rebuttal effectively. Indeed, you're mumbling tautologies now, thinking they'll get you off the hook.

The fact remains: You're unable to get out from under your statement that Obama's knowledge is OBJECTIVE, that is, eminently apparent and knowable.

CPA? Sheesh, I hope you offer your clients a guarantee!! LOL!!

repsac3 said...

Oh.

My.

God.

Guess who's back from the pasture, & rarin' to go...

The words are lost on him, though... He just cannot see.

John of the Dead said...

Welcome back, goat fucker! How was the pasture? (Note, at this point, you have tactily confirmed that you fuck goats, since silence implies consent. You sick, SICK, goat fucker!)

obvious adj easily discovered, seen, or understood

"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."

Come now, goat fucker. Even you can easily see and understand that. You lose. Thanks for playing.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Donald, the fact that you find it so necessary to ignore my examples is what I’d call “willful ignorance.” Look, my favorite color is blue. I’ve said that repeatedly and I wear bluejean shorts almost every day. If someone said “It’s obvious Doctor Biobrain’s favorite color is blue,” are they saying that it’s a fact that my favorite color is blue? What if I’m lying? What if I change my mind? And how can an opinion be a fact? But all the same, it is fair to say that it’s “obvious” that my favorite color is blue; because I keep saying it. But it’s still not a fact. It’s a guess of my opinion. Similarly, we’re guessing about Obama’s opinion of Wright’s sermons; one which seems obvious to me.

And the fact that you had to invent your own definition of “obvious” is quite funny. Generally, when you cite a dictionary definition of a word, it’s supposed to be self-evident, and shouldn’t require you to continue tweaking it until it fits your needs. You went from the dictionary definition of “easily seen” and morphed it into “universally recognized” and then just “self-evident, for all to see, unequivocally.” But that’s just your invented definition, which is why your dictionary didn’t say that. Mine doesn’t either.

But hey, wingnuts created their own Wikipedia, so perhaps you should use your creative verbiage to write a wingnut dictionary. I suppose the main problem would be coming up with two separate pages for each word; depending on who you were debating at the time. It’d probably be easiest if you just made the pages instantly editable by registered users, so they could just cut-and-paste their needed definition into it on the fly. It couldn’t possibly be any less credible than Conservapedia.

Here’s an example of a sentence using the word “obvious” in a non-factual setting, and yes, it came from your blog: “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.” Not that this is an argument I want to get into, but I fail to see how this claim is “universally recognized.” In fact, there are many liberals who obviously disagree. But can you “prove” that a hasty retreat is not in our interest? Of course not. It’s an opinion. It might be the right opinion, but it’s not a factual claim, because it hasn’t happened yet. It can’t be proven.

In another post, you ask if America is ready for a war of scorched-earth annihilation, and respond “Obviously not.” Is this a factual claim that is universally recognized, or an opinion that someone might disagree with? In another post, you approvingly quote from Dean Barrett of the Weekly Standard, when he writes that “If there's anyone in this presidential race who has cause for hating war, it's obviously John McCain.” Again, this is a factual claim? Or is this his opinion, which many people disagree with? I could go on and on. While the word “obviously” can refer to factual claims, it obviously doesn’t always.

And why do you continue to ignore that, based upon YOUR arguments, Obama loves his country? You insisted that Bush’s statements “proved” that he cares about the troops. Therefore, based upon Obama’s statements, you MUST think it’s a fact that he loves his country. I’ve asked you twice to explain this, yet you continue to evade the question. Please address this point.

BTW, I haven’t read all the comments here, as it’s too long and I really am busy; so I don’t know what John and Repsac have said, but they’re big boys and they can defend themselves. But just as I’m not bound by N=1’s arguments, I’m not bound by anything any of my commenter’s arguments. Nor are you bound by the fact that John McCain decided to embrace Jerry Falwell, who said that God caused 9/11 and that America deserved it. We’re responsible for our comments; not those of our commenters’, candidates’, or pastors’. (Of course, I’m still waiting for you to denounce all of Falwell and Robertson’s followers.)

And so you still believe that insults are always ad hominem? Really?? That I assumed you realized your mistake was a sign of respect on my part. But I guess you’ll insist on being a stubborn mule all the same. So is this an argument you really want to reopen? Besides, why do you think it’s wrong to name-call, yet find it ok to insult people? I’d really like to know the difference, as an insult is still an insult even if you don’t use a label to describe the person. And so far, you haven’t shown yourself to be able to write a comment without insulting me.

And this is now the second comment you’ve made that made no reference to our arguments on “unprideful Americans,” Michelle Obama’s comments, and our debate on semantics. Are you admitting defeat, or are you merely being evasive? I think the answer is obviously both.

P.S. Why do you keep putting John’s name in “quotes.” What the hell is that all about? You’re not still pretending he’s me, are you? He doesn’t even write like me, and it’s obvious I have no problem responding back. Can anyone say “paranoid.” But perhaps you just think it’s some sort of clever insult of the guy.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Hey John, you're taking all the fun out of this by responding briefly to stuff I take paragraphs to write. No fair!

But you've got to remember, the real problem here is that Donald thinks "fact" means true and "opinion" means false. I suspect he lives in the world where people imagine "Well, that's your opinion" is considered the ultimate rejoinder; rather than a pointless tautology. And by that standard, something can't be "easily discovered" if it's false; therefore, an opinion can't be obvious. There's a reason they teach this stuff in third-grade, though the lesson doesn't always sink-in, obviously.

Oh, and one positive that's come of all this is that I've really been expanding my vocabulary by looking up all the big words that Donald uses incorrectly to impress us. I've never been one to use big words like "tautology" as I find they get in the way of compreshension, which defeats their purpose; but all the same, it's good to know what these words mean. You never know when you might talk to someone who actually knows how to use them, and now I'll be ready. Thanks, Donald.

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biobrain says:

"Donald thinks "fact" means true and "opinion" means false..."

No I don't. As I've said many times, you've argued Obama's beliefs are self-evident and knowable, that's all. If so, you should be able to point to some data for confirmation, showing what he believes. You're stumped, dumbfounded even, and reduced to arguing meanings. Good thing you looked up tautology, because it's illogical to argue with circular reasoning, which is what you do, but with a twist: You redefine words to get out of a jam, like a screaming polecat.

So, let's refer to Lewis Carroll for reference to your slippery wordplay.

Here’s the famous dialogue from the Lewis Carroll work, in which Humpty arrogantly tells Alice he can manipulate words and make them do whatever he wants:

"‘[T]hat shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents — ‘

`Certainly,’ said Alice.

`And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’

`I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.

`When _I_ use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’

`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master—that’s all.’"

Apparently, for Dr. Biobrain, the arrogant, slippery spin-master, they can many many things.

Still waiting for that concession...

repsac3 said...

I believe, Nero, that Bio pointed out that it was you who whipped out a definition for the word "obvious" (in this comment), and this comment, but that there isn't a dictionary that agrees with your own personal (Humpty Dumpty) definition...

So all that "wonderland" bullshit aside (Why do you waste so much post with irrelevant crap!?!), you are accusing Bio of the very thing you are doing. Again.

repsac3 said...

Real (non Nero "Goatfuckin'" Dumbty) definitions for "obvious"

obvious - OneLook Dictionary Search

Doctor Biobrain said...

Donald, did you even read my response to you? You ignored it completely and only responded to my comment to John. Weird.

Slippery wordplay?? As I already pointed out, you're the one who had to reinvent the word "obvious" in order to make any kind of point. Yet I showed examples from your own blog where the word "obvious" is used to refer to opinions and predictions; neither of which fit into the "fact" category. It's obvious you don't agree with your own invented definition of the word.

And this is now the THIRD comment you've written which made no reference to our arguments on "unprideful Americans," Michelle Obama's comments, and our debate on semantics; though I suppose you might have me on the semantic one, as we're now having a debate on the meaning of the word "obvious," though this is the first semantic debate we've had...and it required you to completely invent your own definition. Still waiting for that concession...

And since we're quoting great works, debating you reminds me of a scene from A Fish Called Wanda.

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.


Similarly, I bet it wouldn't be too difficult to get an ape to type words like "tautology," "semantics," and "ad hominem" on a keyboard, but they'd still have about as much understanding on when to use them as you.

Circular arguments? What are you talking about? Can you find even ONE circular argument I've made in this debate? Even one? Sure, you can quote a dictionary definition of the word, but you still don't know how to use it properly. It's obvious you're just tossing out all the big words smart people have used against you and imagine that they're somehow magical incantations which instantly win your debate for you. But they don't. And if you use the words incorrectly, as you continue to do, they just make you look like a big dope.

But again, if you think I've made some sort of circular argument, please let me know where it was. Examples, please. But I suspect you think "circular argument" means "wrong argument" and think I've been making them the whole time. How embarrassing. All those big words, and no one ever told poor Donald how to use them.

Still waiting for that concession...

repsac3 said...

Why should Nero try to make sense here, when he can just call you an America-bashing radical who won't concede ignorance, on his blog. That's far easier (though he runs the risk that some of his people will actually read this debate, understand it, and question his intelligence.)

Doctor Biobrain said...

Still waiting for that concession...

Americaneocon said...

Man you guys are getting nasty over here, which is a sure sign of lost intellectual punch.

For Repsac3, from Dictionary.com:

"Obvious - ob·vi·ous ... easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge..."

I've argued nothing more, Repsac3: Dr. Biobrain states it's obvious, that is knowable, and hence, fact, what Obama's beliefs are.

Now here's Dr. Biobrain piling on this really corrupt, lousy dodge:

"Slippery wordplay?? As I already pointed out, you're the one who had to reinvent the word "obvious" in order to make any kind of point."

You guys must have overdosed on Lewis Carroll's wordplay elixer. As you can see here, the reinventing of language is all over the Dr. Biobrain page. Like last summer, this is more with the postmodern knowledge that is key to the vile project of the anti-American left. Radicals simply ignore authoritative knowledge. You deploy epistemic relativism and your own social construction of reality to wiggle out from under the weight of your own hatred, illogic, and ignominy, objectively illustrated. It's pathetic, frankly.

But funny too, Dr. Biobrain! You claim Obama's beliefs are obvious, and thus when you're unable to get out of your jam, you descend to more objuscation and denial.

Now I've provided a simple, straightfoward, and authoritative definition of obvious. What sneaky trick can you pull now, just like a polecat?

And you continue with the red herrings, saying: "And this is now the THIRD comment you've written which made no reference to our arguments on "unprideful Americans."

I've told you already: I concede nothing. No matter anyway, because as I've shown already in this thread, according to the common logic of debate, the burden of proof is on the propagator of a thesis - i.e., that Obama's beliefs are obvious. You're pinned down, twisting the meaning of words, after I've clearly explicated them to show your own hypocrisy, and then you go on with more red herrings, like trying to argue I don't know what words mean:

"I bet it wouldn't be too difficult to get an ape to type words like "tautology," "semantics," and "ad hominem" on a keyboard, but they'd still have about as much understanding on when to use them as you."

These are not difficult words, frankly, and it's even worse for you that in your repsonse now to being identified as commensurate to a slippery polecat you're reduced to calling me an ape. That's is really bad, although Repsac likes the Goat f-king thing, which is fine. He's long lost any credibility as a coherent thinker. More funniness actually: You've got a whole posse arrayed here and you're not able to make a dent against me, only to dig yourself further under!

That's really bad form, but just goes to show further how illegitimate an interlocutor you are. I used your own logic against you last summer, and I'm doing it again. You've got no integrity whatsoever.

I've shown repeatedly and beyond a doubt how incorrect and inconsistent you are. You're flailing every which way, and your blogging defenders like Repsac are making you look even worse. Remember "John" argued against your own logic on opinion versus fact, which is hillarious, considering I've turned around the same illogic to place the sneaky Dr. Biobrain in a box from which he can't extricate himself.

No mention of that in all your deployment of the red herring - and now "ape" - card.

Such techniques are frankly despicable. But hey, that's what it's like when you debate someone who argues they have no problem with "GOD DAMN AMERICA!!"

repsac3 said...

For Repsac3, from Dictionary.com:

"Obvious - ob·vi·ous ... easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge..."

I've argued nothing more, Repsac3: Dr. Biobrain states it's obvious, that is knowable, and hence, fact, what Obama's beliefs are.


Neo, from his earlier definition: "Obvious" is an adjective that describes something that's easily or readily seen. Something that's obvious in universally recognized, that is, manifest. In other words, something that's obvious is open to knowledge, it is FACTUAL. Thus, when something's obvious, it's self-evident, for all to see, unequivocally.

Dictionary.com: 1. easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge; evident.

Can anyone find the word "fact" or "factual" in the dictionary definition Neo cites? How about "universally recognized"? Me neither...

So to blather on about being able to prove something simply because that thing is "obvious", on the grounds that anything "obvious" necessarily must be "factual", is kinda silly... That's what we said, & that's why we said it.

All the rest is just more of the same, meaningless crap one always gets from the professor... Prideful boasting for battles never won, as though saying it makes it so... (A theme, in Neo's schtick...)

Doctor Biobrain said...

Damn Donald, you wrote all that and didn’t say ANYTHING. The whole thing consisted of a slew of insults and empty claims to victory. And while I never suggested you were actually an ape (I was suggesting that your arguments were no better than what could be taught to an ape), you have repeatedly called me a “polecat,” which as John pointed out is a skunk. Can you possibly defend your usage of mindless insults against me, while claiming to be above them?

Secondly, it’s obvious you’re the one who changed the definition of the word “obvious.” Last time, you quoted the definition, and then started tweaking it by pretending it also meant “universally recognized,” as well as other ways of changing the definition to fit your needs. But here’s another online dictionary definition of it, along with an example: 4) easily perceived by the senses or grasped by the mind; "a perceptible sense of expectation in the court.” Are you suggesting that when they gave that example, that there was a factual basis to the “sense of expectation”? Or do you think they meant that as an opinion?

And look, I already pointed out how your blog shows the use of the word “obvious” in a non-factual setting. You never did respond to that blogpost, so I’ll just repeat it here.

I quote myself from above:
Here’s an example of a sentence using the word “obvious” in a non-factual setting, and yes, it came from your blog: “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.” Not that this is an argument I want to get into, but I fail to see how this claim is “universally recognized.” In fact, there are many liberals who obviously disagree. But can you “prove” that a hasty retreat is not in our interest? Of course not. It’s an opinion. It might be the right opinion, but it’s not a factual claim, because it hasn’t happened yet. It can’t be proven.

In another post, you ask if America is ready for a war of scorched-earth annihilation, and respond “Obviously not.” Is this a factual claim that is universally recognized, or an opinion that someone might disagree with? In another post, you approvingly quote from Dean Barrett of the Weekly Standard, when he writes that “If there's anyone in this presidential race who has cause for hating war, it's obviously John McCain.” Again, this is a factual claim? Or is this his opinion, which many people disagree with? I could go on and on. While the word “obviously” can refer to factual claims, it obviously doesn’t always.


Now would you like to explain to us why you used the word “obvious” to describe a prediction and an opinion, or quoted somebody else using the word to describe their opinion? Please address this point.

And here’s the deal: Just because you don’t concede an argument doesn’t mean that you haven’t lost. I’m not sure why you imagine you need to issue a concession in order for me to know I won. I have a brain and it’s obvious to me that your arguments are utterly pathetic. Heck, you’re not even arguing anymore. You’re just insulting me...repeatedly. And the fact that you have now written FOUR comments where you fail to support your futile arguments on “unprideful Americans” or Michelle Obama’s comments is really quite telling. But again, I don’t need your concession to know I’ve won. I know you’ll never concede defeat just as much as I know you’re wrong about everything.

And, of course, the worst part is that you continue to insult me, but can’t find any examples to defend your insults. You accused me of having circular arguments, yet refuse to cite any examples to back-up your assertion. Instead, you just have to keep insulting me and pretending you won.

Sure, I realize there’s nothing difficult about tossing out words like “tautology,” “semantics,” and “ad hominem.” But as you’ve clearly demonstrated repeatedly, it’s obviously difficult to know when to use them properly.


P.S. Have you noticed yet how often I’m using the word “obvious” in non-fact-based situations? Like when I wrote that it was “obvious” your arguments were utterly pathetic. That clearly is a statement of opinion, yet it’s obvious that my usage wasn’t improper. While factual statements can be obvious, opinions can be obvious too. So even your efforts to evade the rest of our debate and focusing on this semantics debate on the meaning of the word “obvious,” you still lose.

Still waiting for that concession…

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Brobrain writes:

"I already pointed out how your blog shows the use of the word “obvious” in a non-factual setting."

More burden-shifting. Stick to the debate at hand. No one's questioning my writings. This is your blog, and you've got to use reason and evidence to support your claims, and you're failing.

Not only that, you've deployed more definitional relativism:

"easily perceived by the senses or grasped by the mind..."

Your definition, okay, perceived by the senses ... yeah, like easily seen, WITH EYESIGHT, as I said, knowable.

Great. We're on the same page. Now, back to YOUR post: Why is it obvious? What is it about Obama's views that are "easily perceived"? You're claiming it, but you keep changing the subject, and the definitions.

A couple of comments back (before my reference to your tautological fallacy), you claim: "I said it’s obvious that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor."

Well, duh!! That's brilliant, DR. BIOBRAIN!!

I've been hammering you about it the whole time, and that's all you can do, is circle back to restate your assertion, rather than explain it? TAUTOLOGY. Hello!!

Instead, you claim I don't know words. That's low down, but frankly, I'm not struggling here, looking up some obscure dictionary references to get out from under being pinned. I mean, "hyperdictionary"? Come on ... that's a joke, right?

And of course, you've dodged the whole "John" attack on your own reasoning, by your OWN commenter, LOL!!

And there's this:

"...you’re the one who changed the definition of the word “obvious.."

God, you sound like a snot-nosed kid. You are truly pathetic. Defend your posts, man. Defend how you use obvious, because the definitions are objectively there, by my examples and now yours.

How about this:

"I have a brain and it’s obvious to me that your arguments are utterly pathetic. Heck, you’re not even arguing anymore."

That's getting pretty bad, Bio-Boy! ROFLMFAO!!

You can't honestly call that an argument.

And here's this, further down:

"I realize there’s nothing difficult about tossing out words like “tautology,” “semantics,” and “ad hominem.” But as you’ve clearly demonstrated repeatedly, it’s obviously difficult to know when to use them properly."

I've tossed out nothing, except easy responses to your foolery. I've consistently responded on point, and given you systemtic substantiation for my arguments. And what do I get? Whining and snivelling!

NO RESPECT!! SHEESH ... AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WANTS YOU?!!

The only thing that you've demonstrated is an undeserved arrogance about some supposed mastery of English.

You're cornered, simple as that. You say you're the big wordsmith, which is just denial. You DO argue tautologically, because that's all you can do.

CPA? BFD!

This whole thread has proven beyond a reasonable doubt (to go back to your legal analogy) that you're a complete hack, a supreme mountebank.

Did you have to look that one up, big boy? ... BIG. BIO. BRAIN. BOY.

And here's this:

"Like when I wrote that it was “obvious” your arguments were utterly pathetic. That clearly is a statement of opinion, yet it’s obvious that my usage wasn’t improper. While factual statements can be obvious, opinions can be obvious too. So even your efforts to evade the rest of our debate and focusing on this semantics debate on the meaning of the word “obvious,” you still lose."

That's pretty weak, Dr. Biobrain. First you dismiss "semantics," then you concede all along that's what you've been doing, which is to play with "the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence."

More dodge ball, no?

So, "Dodge This" (Trinity, The Matrix):

You can play all you want. I've shown that you've applied a postmodern radicalism to your non-objectivist obfuscation. It's completely broke, of course ... you've got nothing. It's all dirt! You're dishonest, and slippery, like a cornered polecat (which is not a skunk, so look that up), which is a description of your behavior, not an epithet.

Still waiting...

repsac3 said...

I've come to the conclusion that our fair professor is just too far gone to comprehend, Bio. (Too biased against anyone who doesn't agree with him, politically, too egotistical, & thus unwilling to admit error, or perhaps, just too stupid...) ((That's the order I suspect, with the first being most likely, anyway... Whichever, it's plum sad.))

But I'll play another quick round, in part to get some kinda handle on how far gone--& how--he really is...)

Nero sez: like a cornered polecat (which is not a skunk, so look that up)

OK... here goes:

Polecat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Polecat may refer to:
One of several species of weasel:
Marbled polecat
Steppe polecat
Striped or African polecat
European polecat

Skunks, or other members of the Mephitidae family"

or how about this one:

polecat - definition of polecat by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.: "polecat (plkt)
n.
1. a. A chiefly nocturnal European carnivorous mammal (Mustela putorius) of the weasel family that ejects a malodorous fluid to mark its territory and ward off enemies. Also called fitch.
b. Any of various related mammals of Asia, especially Mustela eversmanni of central Asia.

2. See skunk."

One more? (Let's make it that good one I used last time, that'll link you to a bunch of different dictionaries.)

polecat - OneLook Dictionary Search: We found 27 dictionaries with English definitions that include the word polecat.

Now... AmericanNeoCon, you biased or egotistical, or stupid man... According to a whole bunch of sources that I'm sure are nowhere near as educated & right as you, is it at all possible that "polecat" is used here in America as another word for "skunk," as well as referring to a european weasel very much LIKE a skunk?

Just maybe?

nutjob.

repsac3 said...

You know... You just haven't defined a thing until you've looked it up in the Urban Dictionary...

Urban Dictionary: polecat

I mention it for the "other" definitions, but since I'm here...

...the first (& most popular) of the eight definitions? "A synonym for skunk. Geographically speaking, its usage tends to be most frequent in the Old South."

Even the unwashed masses know the word... (in fact, they likely started using it for skunk here in the US... (back in the late 1600's, if I recall one of the etemological definitions correctly...)

Doctor Biobrain said...

Burden-shifting?!? I demonstrated that you use the term “obvious” to describe your opinions. Sorry pal, but that’s game, set, and match. Opinions clearly can be obvious, by your own usage.

As for “perceived by the sense,” you’re wrong there too. Opinions can be perceived by the senses. If I say, “It’s a nice day outside,” that’s an opinion that I perceived with my senses. Or if I say "This coffee is delicious," this is yet another opinion that I perceive with my senses. Again, it’s obvious that opinions can be obvious.

And what “definitional relativism” are you talking about? I quoted from an online dictionary, just as you did. You’re the one who changed the meaning of the word “obvious” to only mean facts, and to say “obvious” things are “universally recognized.” But I haven’t changed definitions at all. I just quoted an online dictionary that proved my point. You, on the other hand, have yet to show any definition which says that only facts can be obvious. Not one. While I have given numerous examples which show that opinions can be obvious, including examples from your own blog. I’ve defended my usage of the word repeatedly, and all you can do is insult me for it.

As for my “tautology,” you’re clearly full of BS. I most certainly HAVE explained my opinion. I said it was obvious that Obama disagrees with his pastor on some issues because he has stated this repeatedly. Plus, everything else he says shows him to be in opposition to the controversial things his pastor has said. I stated that repeatedly. There’s no circular argument here. What’s sad is that I know you read through every comment I wrote to find any sort of circular argument, yet this is the best you could come up with. Simply pathetic.

Looks like I guessed correctly when I suggested you thought “circular argument” meant “wrong argument,” and that you thought I was making them the whole time. You’re too predictable, Don.

And I dismissed talk of “semantics” initially because we weren’t having any sort of argument on semantics until you started inventing new meanings of the word “obvious.” In fact, you’re now pinning your entire argument on the basis of whether “obvious” can only refer to facts. You’ve given up completely on arguing the point on “unprideful Americans” and Michelle Obama’s comments, as well as everything else, and only focus on the meaning of one specific word, which you’re obviously wrong about. Sorry dude, but you’re the one playing games with semantics.

Finally, you are the most pathetic person I’ve debated yet. My god, do you actually read what you wrote? “Snot-nosed kid”? I’m a grown man and am in perfect health. “Whining and sniveling”? I’ve obviously done neither. Are you seriously going to argue that these are truthful statements, rather than meaningless insults? Ha!

You’ve clearly stopped making any sort of argument several comments ago. This is now two comments in a row which consist of nothing but insults and empty declarations of victory. And it’s obvious from your increasingly angry comment that you’re the one who is cornered. You’ve got no argument at all, and can only toss out insults and big words which you clearly don’t understand.

But don’t worry, your next comment can have even more insults, exclamation points, and references to words you don’t understand. I used to dread your responses, but at this point, I’m looking forward to your next angry tirade. I’d actually like it if you offered any sort of support for any of your assertions, but I guess that’d be too much to hope for. More insults will do just fine, thanks.


P.S. You were right. I’m not too proud to admit that I did have to look up “mountebank” in a dreaded online dictionary. And yet again, it looks like you’re just describing yourself. And no, I’ve never claimed to be a wordsmith. You’re the one who uses words too big for your brain, while I’m the one who explains what I mean in regular words, and have to use the dictionary just to see how wrong your smears are. The funniest part about you, Donald, is that you are obviously everything that you loathe.

Americaneocon said...

Dr: Biobrain:

What I write in my posts is not at issue here. Your posts are. So forget that line, your own attacks on my response to "nutjob" demand it.

It's clear you'll just shift words, meanings, definitions any way you want. Last summer you argued Bush's own opinion couldn't be considered as fact to confirm what he felt about the troops. This year you say that Obama's opinion is fully proof that he's not anti-American in supporting Reverend Wright's "God Damn America" sermons.

Well, what is it, Dr. Biobrain, becuase the way you're arguing is totally FUBAR??!!!

I mean definitions. Hey, bend them any old way you want. All I've done is substantiate the terms I've used, and you're happy to sit back with your constant and remorseless ad hominems about how I'm so stupid - I don't know what all these fancy words are I'm bring to debate.

But you ignore your own threads, for example where I said last time:

"First you dismiss 'semantics,' then you concede all along that's what you've been doing, which is to play with "the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence."

That's a clear definition, but you ignore, ignore, ignore...

I'm not basing my argument on that, in any case. Over and over I've shown no matter how you debate, on any issue, you squeeze, squirm, and squeal like a pinned polecat to get out from your OWN PREVIOUS STATEMENTS. You are clueless on what Obama really knows, which is the main point, and how I started this thread:

"You say:

"It's obvious Obama doesn't believe these things."

Why is it obvious? Do you have evidence that Obama doesn't believe these things?"

And your game is to criticize me, one more time, for insisting that you subtantiate your own argument? That's beneath contempt, and you're already down at curbside level in your sneaky techniques!

BUT WAIT!! Remember, that's not all. Opinion versus fact, opinion versus fact. You can't make up your own damned mind!! Last summer opinion couldn't be used, this spring it can. M-FCKR ... You're Norman Bates! AAHHHH!!!

I better run, you're getting scary, dude. Dr. Biobrain must be like a Mary Shelley character, if not Hitchcock!

Oh yeah, I'm okay ... but your freaked out twisting contortions almost drove me off the lot. But not so fast. Remember "John of the Dead" 's own argument:

"'Someone's statement is only an opinion, not a fact, and thus cannot provide proof of an assertion. We'd need independent confirmation, in other words real evidence.'

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, goat fucker. Sen Obama's opinion about his own opinion is inadmissible because it's... opinion? Is that right? In other words, you have arbitrarily disallowed the *ONLY* possible source for an answer to your question? In other other words, you've established a non-falsifiable statement, which, as I'm sure you're aware with you vast knowledge of debating terms, non-falsifiable statements cannot be logically debated. So you set the situation up for failure regardless of position. Great job, goat fucker!"

So, "John" thinks you're a crock of SH%@#$T!! M-FCKR!!

You've got everybody so friggin' confused! Sheesh! Where's old "John." I turned your own logic on him, and he's left you LOOKING like a squealing polecat digging out of his own excrement. Yep, that's what it looks like, just an analogy mind you.

But I asked this before!!

Besides your inablity to explain why YOU THINK that Obama can't identify with Wright's America-hatred, you also can't get around this issue of the fundamental illogic of your own previous argument. As I said last year, historians and diplomats would never be able to use the historical, transcriptural record to record the statesmanship of the ages if we used your reasoning. Of course they do exactly that, but I went with your insistence on the logical IMPOSSIBLITY that an opinion can't be used to determine the veracity of a claim. It sounded stupid at that time, and here we have "John" agreeing with my point!! LOL!!

Here you go some more:

"You ... have yet to show any definition which says that only facts can be obvious. Not one. While I have given numerous examples which show that opinions can be obvious."

But by your own logic opinions can't be used to confirm the truth of something, so why would we use and opinion to state the veracity of something that's obvious, because according to your own definition, what's obvious is "easily perceived."

So what are you going to do? I mean, where's that Christmas fruitcake!! ALL THIS DEBATE'S GETTING ME HUNGRY FOR SOME LUCIDITY, and of course you're not hungry yourself, because you're currently out F-CKNG to lunch!!

And you still want to debate these definitions, after I've clearLY defined terms, objectively with links. What kind of Snidely Whiplash are you, M-FCKR!!

Hello!! I see you don't discount my correct definitions. No, you just go on with your character attacks, which are frankly completely unhinged. I mean you've got to Google some whacked out "hypodermic dictionaries" like some crack addict all hopped up who can't figure our word meanings as if his life depended on one more F-CKNG hit! AAHHAA!!!

These are all analogies, mind you. I don't sink to "nutjob" attacks like you and Repcrack3, and then deny them with some greasy legerdemain!!

And then there's this:

"You’ve clearly stopped making any sort of argument several comments ago. This is now two comments in a row which consist of nothing but insults and empty declarations of victory."

Now that actually calls for some medication! Too bad you're only a pseudonymous CPA!! So, WTF!! You're just screwed, it looks like you can't get out of the jam. To repeat, so we're clear:

1) I repeated my own argument from the start, quoting you when you claim you can OBJECTIVELY know what Obama believes. You can't, so you play dodgeball.

2) Your own logic has been used against you by "John", and I've cited quotations here and previously, which you ignore and then attack me for a single dimensional argument. A total lie, of course, but to be expected by your sneaky slimeball-rally style of cheezy slip-sliding obfuscatory evasions!!

And 3), you are indeed arguing in a circle. If you answer a query by repeating your original argument, that's a circle. But rather that try to explain it or concede your own flawed thinking, YOU ATTACK:

"As for my “tautology,” you’re clearly full of BS. I most certainly HAVE explained my opinion."

Yeah, you have. You've said that it's obvious the Obama differs from Wright's views by saying - wait for it! - it's OBVIOUS!!

HERE'S YOU:

"Can you find even ONE circular argument I've made in this debate?"

Well yes. You say, at comment #3"

"Beyond that, it's obvious that Obama thought this was wrong, and that Americans shouldn't be ashamed to admit they're Americans.

Then you say, after "John's last post:

"I’ve never understood why you imagine that opinions are bad or invalid ... Is it a “fact” that Obama is a patriotic American? Of course not. It’s an opinion."

So, you're saying an opinion can be used to explain an opinion, which is what you said the first time. Hello! How does that get us any closer to subtantiating YOUR POINT, that Obama's view can be known, because the are "clearly in view."

But then you do it again:

"Regarding what you wrote, I have no idea what you just said. I said it’s obvious that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor..."

So, that's all you can say, over and over and over, ad nauseum. WTF!! YOU ARE ARGUING LIKE A SNEAKLY POLECAT AD NAUSEUM AND TAUTOLOGICALLY.

QED!! M-FCKR!!

It's obvious what Obama's views are, that he can't posibly anti-American because we have his F-CKNG opinion! Right!

That's tautoloy, Dr. Biobrain. CAN'T. YOU. GET. THAT. THROUGH. YOUR. THICK. SKULL??!!!

But, in the end you admit you own ignorance of words, only to resort to a F-CKNG cheap-ass slur:

"You were right. I’m not too proud to admit that I did have to look up “mountebank” in a dreaded online dictionary. And yet again, it looks like you’re just describing yourself."

Well, hooty, hooty, hoo, Mr. Biowordsmith!!

I've hammered you here, given you the EXACT documentation that you want, but you'll still be shrieking like a polecat/scalawag to deny, ignore, obfuscate, prevaricate, and frankly continue to make everything FUBAR!

Concede man, because you know I'm just getting on a roll...

repsac3 said...

Allow me to once again point out that Donald Douglas (AmericanNeoCon) is an associate professor in the political science department at Long Beach City College (CA).

That a college professor with a Ph.D. can write such drivel as appears above kinda frightens me... Intellectual honesty and the ability to reason are not high on everyone's list, apparently.

Donald Douglas - Long Beach City College - RateMyProfessors.com

Panelists discuss Iraq in town hall meeting - News

American Power: Student Press Bias at Long Beach City College

...and a polecat is...?

repsac3 said...

What I write in my posts is not at issue here. Your posts are.

It doesn’t matter that Nero has contradicted his own argument by using the word “obvious” in the same way that Bio has, as an expression of an opinion that many can see & understand. What matters is that Bio used it in that way, and Nero disagrees with the opinion he expressed, making it completely different from when Nero did the same thing, expressing opinions with which Nero agrees.

It's clear you'll just shift words, meanings, definitions any way you want.

Nevermind that both Bio & I pointed out that it was Nero shifting the definition of the word “obvious” to make it more closely fit his argument that has him in this mess… Contrary to Nero;’s claims, “obvious” does not indicate or necessitate discussion of facts, rather than opinions. Either facts or opinions can be “obvious” to some sector of the public. (In fact, as soon as a single person says that a fact or opinion is obvious to him, it is obvious, if only to that one person. While others may certainly disagree with his statement, the fact or opinion does not cease to be obvious to that person until further factual information or ideas are presented to him that changes his opinion.)

Last summer you argued Bush's own opinion couldn't be considered as fact to confirm what he felt about the troops. This year you say that Obama's opinion is fully proof that he's not anti-American in supporting Reverend Wright's "God Damn America" sermons.

Umm… No, Bio never said that Obama’s opinion is proof of anything. That is your specious claim, made on the basis of misdefining the word “obvious” in such a way as to require anything one calls obvious to be a fact.

Bio said that Obama’s statements on the subject and his words and deeds up to this point make it obvious to him that Obama doesn’t share the ideas of Reverend Wright in these matters. Your mileage is welcome to vary, & it obviously does.

I mean definitions. Hey, bend them any old way you want. All I've done is substantiate the terms I've used…

Actually, Nero hasn’t, and he seems unwilling to…

But let’s make it perfectly clear: Does the word “obvious” necessitate that the thing described be a universally recognized fact, or can one man’s opinion also be called obvious, even if only to that one man?

…and you're happy to sit back with your constant and remorseless ad hominems about how I'm so stupid - I don't know what all these fancy words are I'm bring to debate.


Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: 'argument to the man', 'argument against the man') consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

It looks to me as though Bio is all to glad to discuss the merits of Nero’s argument, and isn’t calling him anything for the purpose of changing the subject.

Secondarily though, he’s also pointing out that Nero is not using some of his big words correctly. Even in those cases, he is not simply calling Nero stupid; he’s providing the evidence in support of it (defining the big words, and showing that Nero has used them incorrectly, or asking that Nero substantiate his accusations with examples (see circular reasoning.)

Over and over I've shown no matter how you debate, on any issue, you squeeze, squirm, and squeal like a pinned polecat to get out from your OWN PREVIOUS STATEMENTS. You are clueless on what Obama really knows, which is the main point, and how I started this thread: 



"You say:
"It's obvious Obama doesn't believe these things."



Why is it obvious? Do you have evidence that Obama doesn't believe these things?"


The crux of Nero’s problem is that contrary to his claim, Bio is being consistent in the two arguments that Nero ceaselessly brings up; Just as Bush’s claim to care about troops cannot be offered as proof of the fact that he does care about them, Obama’s statements indicating that he doesn’t share Reverend Wright’s opinions cannot be used as proof that he does not share them. Bio knows this, and never claimed anything different.

Nero however, seems to believe that a person expressing an opinion is the same as that person expressing a fact In the case of Bush from last July, he offers Bush’s statement as proof of a fact, and in the case of Obama, demands proof of the “fact” he believes Obama is stating in saying he disagrees with Wright.

We are all clueless as to what Obama really knows or believes, just as we are all clueless as to what Bush really knows or believes. As with so many arguments, their saying a thing doesn’t make it so.
The only one here claiming that either one of their statements are “facts” requiring proof is Nero.

(Which is not to say that Bio cannot offer his reasons for believing Obama, any more than Nero cannot offer his reasons for believing Bush last July, but one cannot prove an opinion true or false; one can only agree or disagree.)

And your game is to criticize me, one more time, for insisting that you subtantiate your own argument?

Nero wishes for Bio to substantiate Nero’s argument, not his own. Bio is not making the argument Nero claims he is.

That's beneath contempt, and you're already down at curbside level in your sneaky techniques!

Bio’s “techniques” are there for all to see, Nero.

BUT WAIT!! Remember, that's not all. Opinion versus fact, opinion versus fact. You can't make up your own damned mind!! Last summer opinion couldn't be used, this spring it can.

No… Opinion can never be used as evidence of fact. Not then, not now, not in future. Bio has never said it can.

M-FCKR ... You're Norman Bates! AAHHHH!!!

I better run, you're getting scary, dude. Dr. Biobrain must be like a Mary Shelley character, if not Hitchcock! 

Oh yeah, I'm okay ... but your freaked out twisting contortions almost drove me off the lot.

Almost?

But not so fast. Remember "John of the Dead" 's own argument:



"'Someone's statement is only an opinion, not a fact, and thus cannot provide proof of an assertion. We'd need independent confirmation, in other words real evidence.' 



So, let me see if I understand you correctly, goat fucker. Sen Obama's opinion about his own opinion is inadmissible because it's... opinion? Is that right? In other words, you have arbitrarily disallowed the *ONLY* possible source for an answer to your question? In other other words, you've established a non-falsifiable statement, which, as I'm sure you're aware with you vast knowledge of debating terms, non-falsifiable statements cannot be logically debated. So you set the situation up for failure regardless of position. Great job, goat fucker!"



So, "John" thinks you're a crock of SH%@#$T!! M-FCKR!!


No, John is not arguing a point of fact, but a point of logic. Back a few paragraphs ago when I said “we are all clueless as to what Obama really knows or believes,” I left out one person for whom that isn’t true. Obama is the only person who is aware of what he really knows & believes… Whether or not you believe him when he tells you what he really knows or believes is another matter, of course.

What John was saying is, by discounting Obama in this matter, you discount the only person in a position to know, and thus make no proof possible.

Bio & I are making a different argument, but both are valid, and neither contradicts the other.

You've got everybody so friggin' confused! Sheesh!

Only Nero, it seems…

Besides your inablity to explain why YOU THINK that Obama can't identify with Wright's America-hatred, you also can't get around this issue of the fundamental illogic of your own previous argument.

Except that, there isn’t any “fundamental illogic” in the pair of arguments You’re both trying to make the same points, and in my opinion, Bio is winning, again.…

As I said last year, historians and diplomats would never be able to use the historical, transcriptural record to record the statesmanship of the ages if we used your reasoning. Of course they do exactly that, but I went with your insistence on the logical IMPOSSIBLITY that an opinion can't be used to determine the veracity of a claim. It sounded stupid at that time…

Historians and diplomats do not use a figure’s statements as proof of anything, but as primary sources from which they and the rest of us can draw conclusions.

There have been many cases where the words of a leader are later proven to contain untruths about the actual state of affairs in the area under their control. One need only examine the words of Nixon or Saddam Hussain to see that what they say cannot be accepted as truth by virtue of their saying it. The “transcriptural record” is only what they say, and does not address whether what they say is factual.

…and here we have "John" agreeing with my point!! LOL!!

Not the case, as I have already shown.

Here you go some more: 

"You ... have yet to show any definition which says that only facts can be obvious. Not one. While I have given numerous examples which show that opinions can be obvious."



But by your own logic opinions can't be used to confirm the truth of something, so why would we use and opinion to state the veracity of something that's obvious, because according to your own definition, what's obvious is "easily perceived."


While Nero keeps claiming that Bio has offered Obama’s statement as confirmation of the veracity of anything, that is not actually the case. Nero has built himself a hansome strawman, and is arguing against something which Bio never said.

So what are you going to do? I mean, where's that Christmas fruitcake!! ALL THIS DEBATE'S GETTING ME HUNGRY FOR SOME LUCIDITY, and of course you're not hungry yourself, because you're currently out F-CKNG to lunch!!

College professor. The man is a college professor.

And you still want to debate these definitions, after I've clearLY defined terms, objectively with links.

If Nero is still seeing the words “fact” or “factual” in his definitions of “obvious,” he is still not reading them as objectively as he claims.

What kind of Snidely Whiplash are you, M-FCKR!!

Hello!! I see you don't discount my correct definitions.

No, we only discount the incorrect one, containing “fact” or “factual” on which Nero is seemingly basing his whole argument.

No, you just go on with your character attacks, which are frankly completely unhinged. I mean you've got to Google some whacked out "hypodermic dictionaries" like some crack addict all hopped up who can't figure our word meanings as if his life depended on one more F-CKNG hit! AAHHAA!!!

These are all analogies, mind you. I don't sink to "nutjob" attacks like you and Repcrack3, and then deny them with some greasy legerdemain!!

Speaks for itself. No reply needed.

And then there's this:

"You’ve clearly stopped making any sort of argument several comments ago. This is now two comments in a row which consist of nothing but insults and empty declarations of victory."



Now that actually calls for some medication! Too bad you're only a pseudonymous CPA!! So, WTF!! You're just screwed, it looks like you can't get out of the jam. To repeat, so we're clear:

1) I repeated my own argument from the start, quoting you when you claim you can OBJECTIVELY know what Obama believes. You can't, so you play dodgeball.


There is no claim that Bio can objectively know what Obama believes. There is only Nero making such a strawman claim, and then arguing against it.



2) Your own logic has been used against you by "John", and I've cited quotations here and previously, which you ignore and then attack me for a single dimensional argument. A total lie, of course, but to be expected by your sneaky slimeball-rally style of cheezy slip-sliding obfuscatory evasions!!

John did not use Bio’s argument against Bio. He used his own argument against Nero. Successfully, obviously.

The rest later, maybe... All this Nero-logical nonsense is giving me a headache.

Doctor Polecatbrain said...

Wow Donald, when you start letting the insults fly, you just can’t stop, can you. But then again, you still haven’t written one comment that wasn’t laced with insults. And are you ten years old, or what? Look, if you already write the word “F-CK” we know what you meant and so you might as well just write the whole word. And sorry, but calling me a motherfucker doesn’t change just because you spell it M-FCKR. Again, we know what you meant; we’re all adults here. Ya know, for someone who incorrectly thinks insults are ad hominem arguments, you sure do use a lot of them.

And did you really call me Snidely Whiplash AND Norman Bates?? Really?? Am I again to imagine that you think I truly am these two fictional characters, as well as being a skunk?

And look, your entire attack against me now hinges entirely on ONE WORD. You’ve given up on every other argument we’ve had and are now relegated to insisting that this ONE WORD proves that I think there is a factual basis to my opinion of Obama. But was that ONE WORD the crux of my argument? No. It was just ONE WORD I happened to write on the way to a bigger point. A word that you have used repeatedly in a similar context. But because you’ve completely lost every other argument we’ve had, you’re now pinning all your hopes on ONE WORD. I’m not the one doing that, you are. You’ve turned this entirely into a debate on semantics, and insist that this proves that I’ve been doing that the whole time; even though you only started doing that halfway through the debate, once you realized you had lost every other point.

But…if that ONE WORD doesn’t mean what you think it means, then you have no argument at all. And unfortunately for you, you’ve already lost that debate. Look, you have given NO DEFINITION that shows that only facts can be obvious. NOT ONE. And when you say you only “substantiate the terms I've used,” that’s what the rest of us call redefining words; for example, when you insisted that obvious things were “universally recognized.” There is no definition of the word that says that; and that was nothing but an invention on your part.

Besides, all I have to do is show ANY definition which proves I’m right; as words can mean more than one thing. For example, if one definition of “polecat” is “A chiefly nocturnal European carnivorous mammal of the weasel family,” and another definition says it’s a skunk, then there’s nothing wrong with me saying that it’s a skunk, even if you bizarrely suggest otherwise. And in this case, it’s not enough for you to show one definition of “obvious” which says that only facts can be obvious, though you haven’t done that. You have to show that opinions can NEVER be obvious. So unless you can prove that opinions can NEVER be obvious, which you haven’t, then you lose, which you have.

And can you possibly support your assertion on why I can’t use your own words to prove my point? You obviously used the word “obvious” when referring to your opinions, just as I did. So can you possibly explain why it’s not valid for me to mention this fact? Your own blog completely undermines your position, yet I’m just supposed to accept your assertion that I can’t use your words? Why? But I’m sure you’ve got some choice insults you’ll toss at me in lieu of rebuttal. Perhaps you can call me an M-FCKR a few more times and I’ll finally agree with you.

Regarding what you imagine to my “tautology,” all you’ve done is shown where I repeated the same statement. But the repetition wasn’t meant to be the support for the initial statement, dumbass (and no, there’s nothing wrong with me calling you dumbass, if you can call me a motherfucker repeatedly). Rather, the support for that statement was that Obama has said repeatedly that he doesn’t agree with his pastor on those issues, as well as every speech he gives, in which he talks about how great our country. I’ve already explained that, repeatedly.

But instead, you ignore my supporting statements and insist that because I repeated the same phrase a few times that this somehow proves that I’m using a circular argument. Right. Look, the fact that I continue to say the same things that I said before is a GOOD trait; not a fallacy. You, on the other hand, continue to change your arguments at every whim. You say that Bush’s statements can be used as factual proof of your claims, while insisting that Obama’s statements are opinions which are invalid. Similarly, you think insults are “ad hominems” when I use them, yet you find it acceptable for you to insult me using far stronger language. And you dare accuse me of postmodern thinking!

But again, here’s how it works: I have an opinion of Obama that I think is obvious. That opinion is based upon LOTS of things he has said, including when he called America “the greatest nation the world has ever known” in a speech that you’ve seen. I believe he means it. Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps he’s a mountebank, to borrow one of your favorite words. But that is the basis for my opinion, and I’ve never claimed any sort of factual proof of this opinion, as I’m convinced one cannot be found. And that’s what I’ve been saying since the first time I had the displeasure to debate you.

Yet here you are, endlessly ranting about how my use of ONE WORD somehow proves that I think there is a factual basis for my opinion, even though that ONE WORD obviously doesn’t mean what you pretend it means. And so you ignore every other argument we’ve had, as the closest you can find to a winning argument is to play semantic games with the word “obvious.”

It’s no wonder your comments are getting increasingly angry. What else are you going to do? Concede defeat? Of course not, and I have no expectations you’ll do that. How can you? It’d undermine your entire worldview if you admitted that a liberal completely routed you in multiple debates. So instead, you just get increasingly angry, with weirder and weirder rants. As they say, when you have the law, argue the law. When you have the facts, argue the facts. When you have neither, bang the table.

And so here you are, Donald, banging away at the table as hard as you can, in some sort of desperate hope that I’ll give-in and pretend that you won. But sorry Don, I’m just having too much fun with this. It’s a weird thing to admit, but I’m really enjoying your table banging. I used Word to count your use of exclamation points, and you went from a mere eighteen exclamation points in your previous comment to a whopping SIXTY-FIVE EXCLAMATION POINTS in your latest comment! SIXTY-FIVE!!! But who knows, maybe if you go all the way up to one hundred exclamation points, you might finally convince me. That’s a whole lot more likely than you actually being able beat me with your pathetic excuse for arguments.


P.S. Why do you keep calling me a wordsmith? I’ve never said I was one. Never. In fact, I consider myself to be somewhat deficient in the grammar department. That makes it incomprehensible that you keep throwing the word in my face, as if it was mine. Similarly, you keep having convulsions over the fact that I’m a CPA. But look, I only brought it up because I was trying to explain why I was so busy doing taxes; as you somehow imagined that I was taking a long time to do my own taxes and accused me of making excuses. But I don’t imagine it to have any sway over our discussion, so I’m not sure why you’re so obsessed with it. But if it makes you feel better to pretend that it’s some sort of insult for you to keep mentioning, go for it. I get a laugh every time you do.

Oh, and don’t forget to insult me again. Otherwise, I might think you’re conceding defeat.

Americaneocon said...

According to Dr. Biowordsmith:

"Wow Donald, when you start letting the insults fly, you just can’t stop, can you."

You need a question mark on the end there, like this: "....you just can’t stop, can you?"

You're asking a question so you ought to use the correct punctuation. I normally wouldn't correct your grammar, as I noticed a couple of typographical errors in my last post, but I couln't help but notice that IT WAS YOUR VERY FIRST SENTENCE!!

Man, I've got you so confused you can't even finish writing a sentence before you're on to your next hasty attack slur.

I don't stoop like that. I use analogies. I've only COMPARED you to a polecat, and any reference I've made with upper case profanity is like, frankly, cussing when I stub my toe. I mean, sometimes I get mad at myself when I'm not watching where I'm going, and you know what? You guys do the same thing to me, because try as I might, I can't get it to sink into the hard-wiring (really hard and thick) that is your neurons and synapses which are supposed to actually connect somehow to give your some DAMNED COGNITION ABOUT WTF IS ACTUALLY GOING ON!!

Oops, sorry ... you see, I'm a professor, and it is hard sometimes, when your trying your level best professionally to tutor your charges, AND BY SWEET B'JESUS THEY JUST CAN'T GET IT.

I almost want to apologize, but no - you're the one! You've said it all along:

"I was wrong ... 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 ... 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."

Well, there it is, again, from the Holy Reverend:

"No! No No!

“God damn America … for killing innocent people.

“God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans.

“God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

Oh, you're just so cool, Dr Biowordsmith!!

Sure, any liberal - heck, Stalinist! - should agree with this stuff. I mean, it's a no brainer, M-FCKR!! (STUB!!)

And you're a Texas Democratic caucus goer too!

Well, you did hear that over the weekend at a Washington State Dem party caucus activists voted down the Pledge of Allegiance? Here:

"There was some time to kill as multiple tallies of the delegates and alternates were done, and when the time-killer of taking audience questions had run its course and the idea of teling jokes had been nixed, someone suggested doing the Pledge of Allegiance to pass the time. (Are you listening, right-wing bloggers? This is going to get good.)

At the mere mention of doing the pledge there were groans and boos. Then, when the district chair put the idea of doing the Pledge of Allegiance up to a vote, it was overwhelmingly voted down. One might more accurately say the idea of pledging allegiance to the flag (of which there was only one in the room, by the way, on some delegate’s hat) was shouted down."

See Michelle Malkin

Just like Dr. Biowordsmith!! Did you cuss and scream and vote down the Pledge in your Texas caucuses. Wouldn't be a real liberal, you know!!

But I digress!

I'm forgetting that you're reverting true to from, with the dodgeball game! Yo, Ben Stiller-wannabe. A true underdog! Haha!!

Here it is:

"Yet here you are, endlessly ranting about how my use of ONE WORD somehow proves that I think there is a factual basis for my opinion, even though that ONE WORD obviously doesn’t mean what you pretend it means."

Nice try! That's not what we're talking about all. It's not your opinion we're concerned with. It's Obama's! But at least you've conceded my point from the last post that we've now agreed on definitions. All you can do is COMPLAIN that I'm focusing on ONE WORD?

But tell me what - one shred of evidence - that says I should be focusing on something else. I've said, what, two, three, even four times now, that you claim Obama's views are obvious. If they're not, than you have no business saying he doesn't agree with this "God Damn America"

Geez, I bet you even believe this:

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright said. “Hillary would never know that.

“Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

Sure it's a different speech, I know. But these are basically the same ideas. Yo, da brother's down with that M-FCKR??!!

You probably think all liberals should be using the "n-word." Am I right (or "Wright")??!!

Seriously, I'm asking. I mean, this stuff's just par for your Democratic 'hood! Yo!!

Hey, you can't even be a liberal if you ain't hip wid it!!

Yo, Dr. Biowordsmith!!

I'm glad you're having fun, because you've got a lot of climbing to do to get out from your cesspool of vile endorsements of such hatred, on top of more of your lowball obfuscations and DAMNED dodgeball games.

Oops, I stubbed my toe, darn!!

ROFLMFAO!!!

Doctor Wordbrain said...

What the hell is this “Biowordsmith” stuff all about? Are you insane? I’ve never claimed to be a wordsmith. Why do you keep saying that? It doesn’t really bother me, I guess, but it sure is strange. Perhaps I’ll call you Donald Fouglas, just to be equally lame. On the other hand, I guess it’s nice that you seem to have calmed down a bit, as I was beginning to wonder if I should be concerned for my personal safety; what, with all those exclamation points flying all over the place. But just so you know, I had originally placed a question mark at the end of that first sentence, but realized it wasn’t really a question, and preferred to exclude it for style reasons. Thanks, anyway.

As for the pledge thing, I’m not sure why you mentioned it, but I probably would have voted the same way. I’ve always thought the pledge was a useless piece of noise. They make kids recite words they don’t even understand and it serves no purpose whatsoever. An Al Qaeda sleeper cell is just as likely to say that pledge as anyone else, and it binds no one to support anything. Reciting a pledge doesn’t create loyalty. I’m not sure why conservatives are so obsessed with meaningless gestures of patriotism, but perhaps that makes up for all their misdeeds that hurt our country. People who act the holiest are often the biggest sinners. (As a clarifier, I’m not one of those who suggest the pledge should be banned; as I really don’t think it’s important enough to bother with.)

Regarding Wright’s comments, are you a religious person? I’m not, but I can’t imagine that if there is a god that he’d look kindly upon all the horrible things Americans have done. Do you approve of these things? Or do you insist on wearing blinders and pretend Americans haven’t done horrific things? But Wright wasn’t cussing America, like you stubbing your toe. He meant that literally; that god strongly disapproves of what we’ve done. I definitely wouldn’t have said things the way Wright did, as you can see from my blog, as I’ve never said anything like that; but I definitely understand what he was saying.

And that’s the thing, you’ve got this all backwards. I love my country, in spite of all the bad things Americans have done. You, on the other hand, seem to imagine that our misdeeds are so horrible that we can’t even discuss them, lest we risk undermining our nation. Well I think America is strong enough to allow us to talk about the bad things. You can walk around with blinders on if you want, but I’d prefer to see our faults and try to fix them. But I suppose that’s why you also immediately rejected Wright’s comments, without bothering to wonder why he said them. To you, anyone who points out America’s flaws can only hate America, and you find any other explanation to be inconceivable. You’re as predictable as you are simple, Donald.

BTW, I kind of doubt that a Stalinist would have a problem with killing innocent people; seeing as how Stalin was NOTORIOUS for killing innocent people. He also had no problem with treating people as less than human, and definitely thought his country was bigger than any god. In other words, a Stalinist wouldn’t agree with Wright at all, and Wright would have denounced Stalin even more than he did Americans. Are you even capable of using words properly? But I suppose in your twisted world you’d think Wright would like Stalin because he hates America so much.

And sorry to break this to you, but we most definitely ARE talking about my opinion of Obama. It is my opinion that it’s obvious that Obama doesn’t agree with Wright on these issues, as he has specifically stated he doesn’t agree, and he keeps saying things that someone would say if they loved their country. Why would someone who hated America say it was “the greatest nation the world has ever known” in a speech that you’ve seen? But I was the one who wrote the opinion you’re attacking; not Obama. So who else’s opinion could we be talking about?

And that you’re actually taking pride now in admitting that we’re only debating on the meaning of ONE WORD? ONE WORD that wasn’t even important to my point??? I thought you hated debates over semantics. Yet here we are, with you twisting all sorts of incorrect meanings out of a simple word that you yourself have used just as I have.

And look, you’re just wrong about the word “obvious.” I’ve demonstrated that repeatedly. Every dictionary has backed up my point. I’ve used various examples to demonstrate my point. And I even used your own words to show that YOU use the word “obvious” to refer to your opinions. Opinions can be obvious. I’ve proven that. And so I don’t need to “prove” that Obama loves his country. I just need to show what my basis for that opinion is, and I have. I think it’s obvious, and that the only reason you don’t see it is because you’re stuck in the unenviable position of having to oppose Obama.

And so here we have me, saying what I’ve always said about the difference between opinions and facts, and saying that facts can’t be based upon someone’s statements. And then we have you saying that Bush’s statements can be used as factual proof, while Obama’s statements are lies…or wrong…or, I don’t know actually. I still haven’t figured out what you imagine your point is. I think you’re just arguing to argue, as you’ve lost your debate compass quite some time ago.

And wow, did you really embarrass yourself with your “hood” talk. I’m not sure if you pull that shit in your classroom, but you definitely shouldn’t. It was both rude and awkward. But overall, I totally understand why you became a professor. I really do. You’re clearly a control freak who insists upon controlling every conversation, and get a bit freaky when anyone challenges your penchant to lecture. Well sorry, but I was always one of those students who was smarter than the teachers, and got the grades to prove it. And here we have poor Donald, so busy trying to teach an errant pupil that he fails to understand how he’s completely missed the boat on everything.

Sorry to break this to you, Don, but only in the classroom are you the ultimate judge of who wins or loses. In the real world, you’ve got to prove your points just like everyone else. And in this case, you definitely deserve an F; while I yet again slamdunk the easy A.

Still have no hopes of getting any concession…but it’s fun trying.

repsac3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
repsac3 said...

...and a polecat is...?

Biased nutjob.

John of the Dead said...

Man, it's like....

Wow.

Never in my life have I witnessed such willful, purposeful stupidity. It's gone beyond ignorance, as the facts have been laid bare multiple times. The mind reels.

Let me see if I'm following along correctly. Goat fucker, has this entire event *really* been about the use of the word, "obvious?" Really? Because at this point, that's what you're arguing. (Unless, of course, you'd deign to FINALLY answer my point-blank question to you from several dozen posts back, namely: What, exactly, are you asking/claiming in re: Sen Obama & Rev Wright?)

If that is the case, the definition of the word "obvious" has been provided, many times, with citation links. The differ subtly but significantly with your personal, uncited (and therefore unofficial, ie, made-up) definition. Sen Obama's personal views were quoted to you, with citation. Based on the definition of the word in question, "obvious," and Sen Obama's own words, it's obvious that his opinion is obvious.

I don't know why I'm bothering with this. I guess I'm too much like this guy. At this point, it's apparent (ooh, synonyms!) that you have a vested interest in not seeing reality. For some reason, it's important to you, on a deep, personal level, to twist facts and meanings to fit a pre-defined viewpoint.

You know, it's a funny saying, but it's not a joke: Reality has a liberal bias. When logical, rational people encounter facts that run counter to their views, they re-asses their views and update them to fit the new facts. I'm a mechanical engineer by trade, so perhaps I am accustomed to modifying theories to account for new data. However, based on your behavior in this exchange (I cannot, in good faith, call this a debate, as whatever thin arguments you've made have been rent asunder over and over and over again, with nothing but spittle-flecked keyboard mashing from you in return), it's plain to see that you are trying to fit the facts into your pre-defined worldview; if they must be bent, twisted, or broken, so be it, and if they must be discarded completely, all the better.

OK, goat fucker, you have been challenged: state your claim in re: Sen Obama and Rev Wright. I'm still waiting. I'll settle for a coherent, logical argument in lieu of the concession I've won.

repsac3 said...

I guess I'm too much like this guy.

Terrible picture...

I have more hair, in person.

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biowordsmith says:

"Every dictionary has backed up my point."

Well, ah, no, actually. I left a definition of obvious with a link to the online source, which is basically the definition I've used all along - and you're ignoring it, precisely because it concisely, decisively proves my point.

Still waiting for you to concede...

Then we can move on to another debate, if you're not spent.

Instead, you import whacked, cracked, and hopped up definitions from some hypodermic dictionary even you yourself have said are bogus: "I did have to look up “mountebank” in a dreaded online dictionary."

Indeed, these "dreaded" dictionaries will do nothing to get you out of your damned jam!

But, look, I have a little paperback dictionary on my desk. It's Webster's "New World Dictionary," published in 1990. What's it say for "obvious"?:

"...easy to understand; evident..."

Exactly! That's all I've ever said. You say Obama's view are "evident." Indeed you've said the same thing over and over again. But haven't offered a shred of substantiation!!

Plus, you're killing me with tautology! If you're arguing that Obama's views are obvious - i.e., evident - and then in response to my asking for the evidence to substantiate such self-evident facts, and you then respond by saying, "Well, he said it's obvious," then, what do you know? More circular reasoning, which is for you, an argument of whose premises assume, and namely are logically dependent upon, the conclusions of the point.

You do it all the time!

And now look at you, going off on a tangent again.

You're the worst, Dr. Biowordsmith, just like a sneaky polecat!!

John of the Dead said...

Let me see if I'm following along correctly. Goat fucker, has this entire event *really* been about the use of the word, "obvious?" Really? Because at this point, that's what you're arguing. (Unless, of course, you'd deign to FINALLY answer my point-blank question to you from several dozen posts back, namely: What, exactly, are you asking/claiming in re: Sen Obama & Rev Wright?) Please note, this is a question with a binary answer: yes or no?

Doctor Biobrain said...

Right. So your online dictionary is an unimpeachable source, while mine is entirely unreliable. Of course. BTW, Hyperdictionary is a collective of other dictionaries, and included your definition too. So there is nothing weird about it, even if you’re capable of turning its name into a HILARIOUS pun. Trust me, I slapped my knee three times when you called it “Hypodermic dictionary.” It was even funnier the second time you wrote that. And yes, I’m being sarcastic.

But just to explain this to you, as you seem a little clueless as to how these things work, HyperdictionaryHyperdictionary pulled the specific definition I used from WordNet Dictionary, which is run by Princeton University. So I guess Princeton is like a crackdealer who provided me with the definition which was like crack for me. I only cited Hyperdictionary because it was the first page I had and I didn’t realize you would be capable of undermining it by changing its name. Is that perhaps a superpower of yours, to defeat things by thinking of wacky alternate names to call them? How ingenious. Did you think of that all by yourself?

Oh, and just so you know, I said I used a “dreaded online dictionary” because I was mocking you, because you seemed so outraged that I used an online dictionary. But I obviously don’t have a problem with using them, and do so all the time. Call me crazy, but I’m one of those people who like to know what the words I use mean. You really seem like a thick person when it comes to understanding sarcasm and mockery. (Please note the use of similes, which shows that I didn’t insult you. Yet another clever trick I learned from you, Senor Fouglas.)

As for that ONE definition you say supports your position, I guess I’m a little slow, as I don’t see your point. Could you please explain that to me, in English and without the insults? And none of this “Something that's obvious in universally recognized, that is, manifest” stuff, where you “explain” the word by completely redefining it. Because I suppose if you can explain how this one definition supports your case, I guess I will concede that I was wrong for saying that no definitions supported your case. Sure, I’ve got all the other definitions on my side, but I’m not so petty that I can’t give you one meaningless victory…assuming you’re right, which I doubt.

Besides, words obviously have more than one meaning, and so if “obvious” can be used to describe opinions, then you’re clearly wrong for saying they always describe factual statements. But of course, the dictionary you linked to shows at least TEN different definitions of the word, including the one I gave from Hyperdictionary; yet somehow, you only could focus ONE definition. And even that doesn’t say opinions can’t be obvious.

And let’s not forget that I gave three examples from your own blog that shows the word “obvious” being used just as I used it. Are you seriously suggesting that when you said that “it's obvious that a hasty retreat from Iraq is not in the nation's or the military's interest,” you were making a factual statement, rather than stating your opinion of a hypothetical situation? What, are you psychic or something? But I’m sure you’ll ignore this just as much as you’ve ignored every other time I’ve said it. You’ll just stick with your semantic games and pray nobody notices.

And finally, there’s an easy out for all this. Even if, I repeat, IF my use of the word “obvious” meant that I thought I was stating a fact, it’s obvious it was inadvertent. If anything, I just used the wrong word. I don’t believe that for an instant, but if you’re correct about the meaning of that word, then I obviously misspoke because I clearly didn’t mean it that way. I’ve insisted again and again that opinions can be obvious, so it’s obvious I hadn’t intentionally stated my opinion as fact.

And so in any case, even if you win this semantics debate, which you’ve already lost, I still would win the main point. Because in no case was I saying that Obama’s statements count as factual proof of anything. I would never say that. It doesn’t even make sense. Had I done that, I’d be making the same mistake you made in our N=1 debate, where you thought that Bush’s statements were factual proof that N=1 was wrong. And unlike you, I’m firmly aware of the difference between facts and opinions. Opinions can be right or wrong, but they can never be proven.

As for this “tautology” you keep insisting I’m making, I’ve figured out the problem here. You don’t understand what we’re even talking about. Look, I made a statement. That statement was an opinion, which was based upon everything I’ve ever heard Obama say. I thought that opinion was obvious, as I still do. So I stated my opinion, which was only a minor point I was trying to make.

But in no case was I giving Obama’s opinion when I wrote that. How could I? I’m not Obama. For me to state Obama’s opinion, I’d have to quote Obama. And I didn’t. Those were MY words, which describe MY opinion of Obama. Not Obama’s opinion of himself. And when I HAVE given Obama’s opinion, it was in quotes, like when I quoted him saying that America is “the greatest nation the world has ever known.” That was HIS opinion of America. And MY opinion is that he’s being honest when he says that and that this is an indication that he doesn’t agree with his pastor. But if it’s not in quotes, then it’s my statement; not his.

There, did that help? Do you now see the difference between Obama and me, and how we were talking about my opinion the whole time? My words, my opinion. That’s how it works. And my opinion was based upon Obama’s statements; which is what I’ve been saying the whole time. Here, I’ll even give you the argument.

1) If someone says they love their country and you choose to believe them, then you can say they love their country.
2) Obama says he loves his country and I choose to believe him.
3) Therefore, I can say that Obama loves his country.

See how simple that is. No tautology at all. It all makes perfect sense. And as long as you can remember that if I said “Obama loves his country” that this represents my opinion and cannot be proven or disproven, then we’re good. Of course, it took me days to finally realize you had confused my opinion for Obama’s, so I have no real expectations that you’ll finally understand these basic ways of comprehending reality.

You’re like the worst, Professor Fouglas.

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biowordsmith says:

"But of course, the dictionary you linked to shows at least TEN different definitions of the word, including the one I gave from Hyperdictionary."

Aha! At least you acknowledge my citations, for once! But alas, a dodge is still a dodge.

You see, the ONLY definintion in the paperback Webster I provided yesterday indicated, "...easy to understand; evident..."

Webster's of course, goes back to Daniel Webster, whose dictionaries are generally considered the most authoritative - not some whacked, cracked online "hypo-dictionary"!

Not only that, IT'S YOUR USAGE THAT'S AT ISSUE, as the context of your claim on Obama is that it's "clear" what Obama knows. If something's clear, it's manifest, i.e., self-evident.

You weren't using "obvious" in any other sense, as you own statement shows:

"It's obvious Obama doesn't believe these things..."

That's the same useage as Lanny Davis makes today at Wall Street Journal: "Clearly Mr. Obama does not share the extremist views of Rev. Wright."

The problem for Davis, like you, is that we only have Obama's verbal statements to know "clearly" what he believes.

But that's an assumption. Davis' whole ESSAY ACCEPTS THE ASSUMPTION, but attacks Obama's ACTIONS that he has not left the church.

But I don't accept the assumption, that it's "obvious" (your usage) or "clear" (Davis' usage) that Obama does or does not believe in Wright's hate gospel. You've made it an empirical question, and empiricism requires data, which you cannot provide, hence your argument's a sham.

Besides, your alternative definition, "easily perceived by the senses or grasped by the mind," is frankly just another wordy way to say "clearly," just like Davis, who affirms your basic point.

THAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION YOU'VE USED IN ARGUMENT HERE. You can't come along logically and protest that there are "ten" definitions. We aren't debating those. We're debating yours, so you're deploying red herrings again.

Of course, Davis, as far as I know, is not a proponent of the "opinion versus fact" fallacy as you are, as you demonstrated last summer, and as "John" has debunked, so people are not going to worry about his use of "clearly." They'll go on to his substantive analysis showing that Wright's views are out of the mainstream, and should be repudiated, not embraced, which is what you do.

So, it's not just the use of of "obvious" or "clearly," two expressions of the ASSUMPTION that something's self-evident, it's the nihilist demonic preachings at issue underlying all of this.

So, not only are you on sinking ground in your endless evasions, Davis' essay at WSJ today supports my position that Wright's an extremist, and, by implication, so are you.

You need to quit your definitional prevarications and write a new post renouncing your support for such hatred. You cannot defend the use of "obvious," and you certainly can't defend "GOD DAMN AMERICA."

John of the Dead said...

You see, the ONLY definintion in the paperback Webster I provided yesterday indicated, "...easy to understand; evident..."

How does that indicate that it does *not* apply to opinions?

Webster's of course, goes back to Daniel Webster, whose dictionaries are generally considered the most authoritative - not some whacked, cracked online "hypo-dictionary"!

Actually, the most authoritative dictionary is the Oxford English Dictionary, with over 600,000 words over 20 volumes and 21,000 pages. Unfortunately, it does not offer a free online version. Also, the name "Webster" has been applied to so many different brands of dictionary, including Webster's International and Merriam-Webster Collegiate, it's importance has been diluted. It's almost like "Band-Aid" or "Xerox."

Despite that, how have you demonstrated that the definition given was incorrect? Need I remind you that it was *you* who added the factual element to the definition, one not present in any version I've ever seen. To boot, if you had bothered to follow the Hyperdictionary link at which you scoffed, you'd see that the one definition they chose to highlight *is* your much-vaunted Webster's. As it's obvious that you didn't bother to check the link, I'm beginning to doubt that you even consulted any dictionary, as no reference is made to factuality.

Not only that, IT'S YOUR USAGE THAT'S AT ISSUE, as the context of your claim on Obama is that it's "clear" what Obama knows. If something's clear, it's manifest, i.e., self-evident.

[snip]

The problem for Davis, like you, is that we only have Obama's verbal statements to know "clearly" what he believes.

OK, let's flip it around. What would you consider to be "evidence" about someone's opinion? That's something you still have not answered, despite repeated calls for it.

But that's an assumption. Davis' whole ESSAY ACCEPTS THE ASSUMPTION, but attacks Obama's ACTIONS that he has not left the church.

I take it that you are not a person of faith, and therefore do not attend any church. I can tell you from personal experience, the pastor and his sermon is one of the *least* important aspects of church membership. Pastors come and go, and their opinions wax and wane. A church is about the community of faith. It's about building the fellowship of believers, and banding together for mutual support and pooling resources to better carry out Jesus' commandments - feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, minister to the prisoner. The pastor himself is only tangentially involved in the work of the church.

Bonus tip: when the pastor becomes the focus of the church, it's a cult.

But I don't accept the assumption, that it's "obvious" (your usage) or "clear" (Davis' usage) that Obama does or does not believe in Wright's hate gospel. You've made it an empirical question, and empiricism requires data, which you cannot provide, hence your argument's a sham.

No, *you* have made it an empirical question, and you've muddied the waters by arbitrarily disallowing the available evidence, without specifying what you would allow. I suspect it's because you know you've lost and have no leg on which to stand.

Besides, your alternative definition, "easily perceived by the senses or grasped by the mind," is frankly just another wordy way to say "clearly," just like Davis, who affirms your basic point.

By Jove, I think you may be on the verge of grasping synonyms! Eureka!

But so what?

THAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION YOU'VE USED IN ARGUMENT HERE. You can't come along logically and protest that there are "ten" definitions. We aren't debating those. We're debating yours, so you're deploying red herrings again.

No, it seems we're debating the dictionary definitions versus your made-up one that limits "obvious" to factual statements, rather than including opinions.

Of course, Davis, as far as I know, is not a proponent of the "opinion versus fact" fallacy as you are, as you demonstrated last summer, and as "John" has debunked, so people are not going to worry about his use of "clearly." They'll go on to his substantive analysis showing that Wright's views are out of the mainstream, and should be repudiated, not embraced, which is what you do.

Wait, are we back to debating the "mainstreaminess" or Rev Wright's comments again? Focus, man. Focus. Try to lose just one fight at a time.

So, it's not just the use of of "obvious" or "clearly," two expressions of the ASSUMPTION that something's self-evident, it's the nihilist demonic preachings at issue underlying all of this.

So, not only are you on sinking ground in your endless evasions, Davis' essay at WSJ today supports my position that Wright's an extremist, and, by implication, so are you.


Ah, what's that I hear? Is it the sound of shifting goalposts? Why yes, I think it is. So, we have a tacit concession of the "obviousness" of Sen Obama's disagreement with Rev Wright, and an attempt to shift to focus back to the questionable statements themselves. Don't think we didn't notice.

You need to quit your definitional prevarications and write a new post renouncing your support for such hatred. You cannot defend the use of "obvious," and you certainly can't defend "GOD DAMN AMERICA."

Anyone who would make your last claim is obviously Biblically illiterate. Please allow me to quote from the Gospel of Luke, specifically from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount:

But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
Luke 6: 24-26, New International Version

That's Jesus himself cursing the rich, the prosperous, the happy, and the well-to-do. And what's another word for curse? Damn. Look, if you want to take issue with one of the founding ideas of Christianity, spoken by Jesus himself, that's your business. But to me, it sure looks like Rev Wright was just repeating what Jesus himself already said. Don't like it? Take it up with Jesus.

repsac3 said...

Too biased?

Too egotistical?

Too stupid?

We may never ever know... but we can guess...

Hey Nero... What's a polecat, again?

Doctor Biobrain said...

Donald? Uh, no. You’re wrong. Look, it’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to have said that as an empirical statement. Even if I meant it that way, which I obviously didn’t, it can ONLY be an opinion; no matter which word I used to describe it. Had I written “It’s a fact that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor,” I would be wrong for using the word “fact,” because it could only be an opinion.

And I’ve already explained all this to you before, back when you insisted that you could use Bush’s statements to make empirical statements about his opinions. No matter what you called them, your statements were still opinions. And here we are, with you wanting to use my own arguments against me, but being unable to do so because I’m not dumb enough to imagine that such statements could be empirical. Opinions are opinions, no matter what we want them to be. And if you describe an opinion as an empirical statement, you are wrong; by definition. Opinions cannot be facts.

Now, if you were arguing that I was wrong to use the word “obvious,” you could conceivably have a point. You’d be wrong about that too, but it could be conceivable. But instead, you’re pretending as if my use of this ONE WORD somehow traps me into the same incorrect position you had during our N=1 debate. And on that bizarre basis, you keep demanding that I defend a position I’ve never had.

And that is the very nature of a semantics game. You insist that this ONE WORD could only mean one thing, though you have no reference source which says it only means that. And so you’re back to redefining the word so it only means one thing. And if I said, “This is clearly a beautiful day,” you’ll somehow insist that this is an empirical statement, rather than a statement of opinion. And so my use of this ONE WORD, with a meaning that you say means only one thing, somehow binds me into a position which I cannot possibly have.

That’s a semantics game. You’re not arguing against my position. Instead, you’re trying to force me into adopting a position I don’t have, all because of ONE WORD which I clearly didn’t mean in the way you pretend I did. And again, you’re trying to force me into YOUR position, from our N=1 argument. You’re just arguing against yourself. But again, I’m sorry, but I’m just not dumb enough to take such a position. Remember, I know the difference between facts and opinions.

But in any case, you’re still wrong about the word “obvious.” The context I used it in was in a statement of opinion, so I clearly used it to express the obviousness of an opinion. Just as you used it to express the obviousness of your opinions on your blog. Whether or not opinions can be obvious, both of us have used the word to describe our opinions. I clearly have won this argument.

And do you really believe that the difference between facts and opinions is a “fallacy”? Really?? That would explain much. Sorry, but it’s not a fallacy. There are differences between facts and opinions. The only fallacy here is that you’re playing a game with semantics, and insisting that words like “obvious” and “clearly” change statements of opinion into statements of fact. But you’re wrong. There are no magical words that can turn an opinion into a fact. An opinion is an opinion, no matter what words we use to describe them.

Oh, and just so you know, I’ve completely forgotten that you ignored everything else I wrote. Once again, you’re much too clever for me and your evasiveness has succeeded in convincing me that this is the only issue we’re debating. So here we are, with you having written twenty comments on this one post, still trying to convince anyone that opinions can’t be obvious, despite all evidence to the contrary; and this is your only point left. To quote the much maligned Count Rugen, I think that's about the worst thing I've ever heard.

Still waiting in vain for that concession, Professor Fouglas.

Americaneocon said...

Well, I at least see the beginning of your long awaited concession:

"Now, if you were arguing that I was wrong to use the word “obvious,” you could conceivably have a point."

Keep going ... you're almost there. I promise I won't stub my toe! LOL!!

In any case, here you're trying to squiggle out of your claim on what Obama knows. I guess you'll keep trying, but I do have to share my home office reference, which is the 1951 "thin-paper" Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, on obvious:

"Easily discovered, seen, or understood; plain; evident."

The dictionary mentions the key synonym as "MANIFEST."

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along! It doesn't matter what I was substantiating regarding Bush's statment as fact or opinion. Your fundamental logic from last summer is flawed, as I noted with respect to the research in diplomatic history, and your buddy "John" here confirms.

Besides, you have stated an EMPIRICAL question. If not, you would have let it go a long, long time ago. The truth is: You don't want Obama to be seen as believing in Wright's hatred. The problem? Obama's questioned about his Muslim associations and of loyalty to the teachings of an inflammatory preacher who damned the United States. You want to deny this, by alleging that it's "just an opinion." But you can't deny that Obama might possible agree with Wright, because his opinion's not verifiable; and thus if it's not, your whole post is a bogus piece of junk that belongs in an outhouse. Recant and concede!

Now, sure, opinion versus fact - have it your way. If Obama's views are just an opinion, why do you state his unbelief in Wright's hatred is "obvious"? If obvious is self-evident, or manifest, well, let's see your evidence for the claim. Hence you argue an empirical point. It has to be falsifiable to be valid. If not you're blowing smoke, as always.

Nice dodge once again. But you're wrong, and Lanny Davis' piece just clinched my case against you. Davis said that it was "clear" that Obama's not in sync with Wright on the America-hatred, but he should denounce him nevertheless. "Birds of a feather flock together," and man, that can't be good for Obama in November.

Most Americans are not going to engage you in puerile debate about opinion versus facts when it comes to HIV and the U.S. government. You're way out in left field here. Indeed, you're a radical, and I can't believe the Democratic Party would welcome someone with your views. On the other hand, true, they're about to nominate Obama, and he's buddies with Palestinian activists - having lunched with Edwards Said on occasion (who blames the U.S. for 9/11, blah, blah, blah...).

Concede the argument AND denounce your endorsement of "GOD DAMN AMERICA"!!

You're not only digging yourself deeper, you're making yourself into a supreme embarrassment. I'm not going to suprised if this post is deleted soon, because, man, this is not good for progressive politics to be backing these terrorist enablers.

repsac3 said...

I'm not going to suprised if this post is deleted soon, because, man, this is not good for progressive politics to be backing these terrorist enablers.

You have a vastly inflated sense of your own opinions and your power...

The right's protestations & mudslinging regarding Obama & the preacher (& various & sundry other supposed nogoodnicks) are only making you folks look desperate. The Obama - Wright story is old news... It has already affected the vast majority of votes it's ever going to affect.

As far as this particular argument, I'm considering making a perpetual link to it, as an example of the piss poor reasoning skills of some of you folks on the right. Let's just say that your opinion of yourself and your intellectual prowess is inflated, dated, & overrated. You're a pimple on the ass of American progress and frankly, I've come to realize that you're not even worth the squeeze.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Donald, once again you seem confused as to facts versus opinions. As I’ve stated repeatedly, my statement could ONLY have been my opinion. No matter what word I used to describe it, by definition, that statement could NOT have been an empirical claim. Had I said “It’s a fact that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor,” it’d STILL be an opinion and I’d be wrong for using the word “fact” to describe the opinion. Opinions cannot be fact. I’ve explained this repeatedly.

Just to help you out, I found a lesson plan from Auburn University called How Do You Separate Fact from Opinion? It’s a little late in life for you to be learning this basic lesson, which was meant for third graders, but better late than never, eh?

Or here’s another page which gives some questions to help determine if a statement is fact or opinion. The first question is: Can this statement be proved? You continue to insist that I can’t “prove” my statement of Obama, and I agree with you. That sounds like an opinion to me, by definition.

So, are you arguing that I just used the wrong word when I said my opinion was “obvious”? Or are you arguing that my use of that one word magically turned a statement of opinion into a statement of fact? Please answer this question, as I can’t continue this debate until I understand what you’re talking about.

Secondly, as for your definition, can you explain how an opinion doesn’t qualify as all of that stuff? I have an opinion about the weather where I’m at. I say today is a beautiful. day. That can only be an opinion. Now, is it easy discover what my opinion of the weather is? Yes, because I just gave it. Can you see what my opinion is? Yes, because I just wrote it and you can read the words. Can you understand what my opinion is? Of course, because you know what the words “beautiful day” means. And is it evident what my opinion is? Of course, because I just gave it. Therefore, it’s safe to say that my opinion on the weather here is obvious.

Now are you arguing that my statement about the weather is now a fact, because it fits the definition of obvious? My opinion of the weather is obvious. And it’s still an opinion. Please address this point and stop evading it.

And just so you know, I’m not familiar with the dictionary hierarchy, and wasn’t aware that some dictionaries trumped others. Can you please prove me with the dictionary hierarchy, so I’ll know which dictionaries are superior, the next time somebody argues semantics with me? That’d be great.

And will you ever explain why you used the term “obvious” on your blog to describe your opinions? Or will you continue yet again to ignore this point?

Oh, and Lanny Davis is a bigtime Hillary shill, who even the hack Joe Klein insulted for being “disingenuous” with that column you cite. I’m not sure why you imagine Lanny’s opinion is binding upon me, but as I’ve explained repeatedly, it’s not. I’ve got an opinion, he’s got an opinion, you’ve got an opinion. None of these opinions can refute anyone else’s opinion. That’s the nature of opinions. I’ve explained this to you repeatedly, yet you continue to imagine that some opinions defeat others.

And the reason I won’t “let this go” is because I’m having so much fun reading your inane rants. And I absolutely DO deny that Obama agrees with his pastor on these things, based upon everything he says. You are of the opinion that Obama is lying when he says he loves his country and disagrees with his pastor, and that’s your right. And I’m of the opinion that Obama is being truthful when he says these things. That’s what opinions are all about, and we’re all entitled to have our own.

BTW, I never agreed with Wright about the HIV thing and think that was completely crackpotted and stupid. I’m of the opinion that Obama doesn’t agree with Wright on that either. Oh, and McCain became close with Jerry Falwell, who blamed God for 9/11, as well as Reverend Hagee, whose endorsement he sought, and Hagee is an anti-Catholic bigot who referred to the Catholic church as “the Great Whore” and said “God is going to use Muslim terrorists to create ‘bloodbaths’ in our streets to punish us for our sinful policies toward Israel.” But don’t worry, I won’t notice when you completely ignore this or assert that it’s not an issue. I’m dumb that way.

But again, this entire argument has gotten onto one of the dumbest tangents I can imagine, all because you’re now long out of points. Your argument can only be that I used one word improperly, yet you continue to insist that I am now stuck in the absurd position you found yourself in last summer, when you argued that your opinion was factual. But as I’ve stated repeatedly, opinions cannot be facts, no matter what we want them to be.

And so while you think you’re so clever by trying to grab the position I had last summer, I’m still in that position and you’re still in the wrong one. You’re still arguing that opinions and facts are interchangeable and that we can CHOOSE to think an opinion is factual. But they can’t. Opinions can only be opinions. And that’s what I’ve been saying the whole time. You gave your opinion of Bush last summer and imagined it trumped N=1’s opinion. I gave an opinion of Obama now and you insist I defend this as an empirical statement, even though it can’t be one. Because you still don’t know the difference between facts and opinions.

And that’s that. And everything else you’re saying is just noise, wanting desperately for me to give up this debate so you can slink back to your comfy world like a skunk and imagine that you’ve somehow won this debate.

But sorry, Fouglas, but I’m still waiting in vain for that concession.

Doctor Biobrain said...

BTW Donald, I've only deleted one post ever, and that was at the insistence of the guy I wrote about, because he felt insulted over a joke I made about him and I decided to be nice about it. I thought he was wrong for being offended, but he really was upset, so I obliged. And the only comments I've deleted were obvious spammers, who I try to discourage. Only a complete hack would delete posts or comments otherwise.

Besides, I'm having WAAAAY too much fun with this. Like Repsac, I'm planning to write a blog post using you as an extreme example of flawed reasoning. Or the inability to understand hypothetical examples. Like when I suggest that you could conceivably have a point on the word "obvious" before showing why your main point is still wrong. No matter how much I insist that I still don't agree with anything you wrote, you predictably suggest that this represents some sort of halfway concession on my part. How laughable.

So sorry Don, there's nothing you could write that could possibly make me delete anything here and I continue to support everything I wrote. I've won this debate many times over and it's obvious that all you're doing is trying to wait out the clock and hope I stop responding. Not a chance. Everything you write shows you to be getting deeper and deeper into a corner of your own creation. It's obvious that you don't even have a point anymore, other than to keep fighting and pray I tire of you. Sorry Professor Fouglas, but I'm just having too much fun.

repsac3 said...

so you can slink back to your comfy world like a skunk and imagine that you’ve somehow won this debate.

Polecat.

I'm certain you meant polecat, rather than skunk...

And the polecat must be shrieking, because apparently, that's what polecats do...

Thank you for your swift attention to this matter.

That is all.

John of the Dead said...

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I'm a little disappointed that my thourough eviseration of his "argument" was ignored, especially since he turned around and repeated the same tired tripe. Alas, the Wall Of Ignorance is difficult to penetrate.

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biowordsmith:

You just keep digging into your bag of tricks - just like last summer, the Fluffy Trickster! Ha!!

Interesting how you're now using lessons plans, after last summer when I used academic research to show that statesman's personal memoirs can be used to substantiate the diplomatic record you said, "Nope, opinion can't be used to prove a factual claim."

Now you want to smuggle in "lesson plans" that prove some discombobulated point you're desperately trying to make.

But it's not that difficult: You have said it's "obvious" what Obama knows. Plain as that. We've gone over the definition a dozen times and now you concede my point on your usage, so you're off on another red herring to show that opinions have to separate from facts.

But again, even your own commenter "John" made you out to be a loon. I'd agree with you, but you're not consistent, and never to trusted - never!!

You're postmodern, inventing any old argument you can find to get out from your own claim that it is "obvious" what Obama's views are on Wright's hate preachings.

Now, if you would have said "it seems to me that Obama doesn't agree with Wright, because if you look at his past statements, he's argued against the black liberation nihilist demonization of the United States," perhaps you'd have a case.

But you did not do that. You did not say "it seems." You said it's obvious, and again, since all the definitions we've agreed on say that obvious means "self-evident" or "manifest," I insist that you show me your proof what Obama believes. You can't get out from what you've said, so you try to change all the word meanings around, hence Dr. Biowordsmith.

That's just like the sleaziest behavior imaginable, just like a whacked polecat!

Besides, it's like I said before, Lanny Davis used "clear" the same way you used "obvious," but he comes to the "manifestly" accurate conclusion, that Wright's statements are massive political liabilities.

But here you are embracing them as what any liberal should believe. Not only that, as I've repeatedly shown, you're not only wrong, but hopelessly evasive and tautological. But you ignore my claims, since you can't refute them.

I did notice how you stopped claiming I didn't know what I was talking about, and frankly that's because you're pinned like a slimy polecat eating his own dung!! You are amazing, and disgusting too, all the more so now that Obama's dug an even bigger hole for himself, by saying "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I mean, the more this goes on the more pathetic you and your nihilist horde over here look. All you've got are the continued prevarications over "opinion versus fact," ostensibly bolstered by some third-rate freshman academic syllabus. That's getting to the bottom of the barrel!! Like a sleazy, slimely Texas-dragged polecat!!

But I called you out on this last summer, when I said you'd use any old whacked postmodern anti-intellectual argument that no positivist academic would find the least bit credible. Tomorrow's the 15th and I'm not going to be surprised if you're flooded with IRS claims for all of the folks who were hoodwinked on some mountebank-organized scam of CPA tax-prep.

Good thing you use a pseudonym!

I don't, of course, because I'll stand behind my statements. I'd be ashamed too, to have my own name attached to all of the mental effluence you're constantly touting here.

But don't just take my word for it. Dr. Sanity's got you nailed:

"To the modernist, the "mask" metaphor is a recognition of the fact that words are not always to be taken literally or as directly stating a fact--that people largely use language elliptically, metaphorically, or to state falsehoods, that language can be textured with layers of meaning, and that it can be used to cover hypocrisies or to rationalize. Accordingly, unmasking means interpreting or investigating to a literal meaning or fact of the matter. The process of unmasking is cognitive, guided by objective standards, with the purpose of coming to an awareness of reality.

For the postmodernist, by contrast, interpretation and investigation never terminate with reality. Language connects only with more language, never with a non-linguistic reality....

For the postmodernist, language cannot be cognitive because it does not connect to reality, whether to an external nature or an underlying self. Language is not about being aware of the world, or about distinguishing the true from the false, or even about argument in the traditional sense of validity, soundness, and probability. Accordingly, postmodernism recasts the nature of rehtoric. Rhetoric is persasion in the absence of cognition...."

Precisely. All you've got are you endless, mindless ellipticisms about "opinion versus fact," and then you claim that "obvious" doesn't really mean "manifest," which is proved by crackerjack (cracker-style) dunderheaded "hypo-dictionaries from God knows where M-FCKR!!! There's no reality in your Dr. Biowordsmith black liberationist hate-backing nasty Texas-sized Democratic Party sleazin' blog project over here!

And don't forget, Daniel Webster's spinning in his M-FKNG grave!!

Man, you're whipped!!

And you're pulling back in Hagee and McCain. Those folks were ruled out BY YOUR OWN DECISION RULES ages ago.

You've got nothing!!

It's time for you to concede ... Dr. Sanity's a real psychiatrist, and man has she got your number.

You're done, Dr. Biowordsmith!

Doctor Biobrain said...

Donald, all you're doing at this point is repeating yourself endlessly, when AT BEST your argument can ONLY be that I shouldn't have used the word "obvious" in that sentence. That's it. That is definitely your only point.

Is that really what you're going with here? You've written over TWENTY COMMENTS, and the best you've got is a semantics debate as to whether I can use the word "obvious" to describe my opinion? Really?? Are you proud of this? Or are you so deep inside your self-created corner that you forgot what real victory looked like.

Secondly, I have NEVER conceded the definition of that word. NEVER. Nor have we decided that there is only one definition to the word, as there are obviously multiple; and there can be no doubt that my usage of the word was proper. And finally, you haven't shown ONE definition that disqualifies my use of the word.

Thirdly, could you please show me which definition says the word means "manifest" or "self-evident"? And no, synonyms are NOT definitions. They are words that can have similar meanings, but don't always. Similarly, if I called you an ass, that can refer to a sure-footed mammal; though I doubt you'd assume that's what I meant. Words can have more than one meaning.

And finally, will you ever acknowledge that you've used the word "obvious" on your blog to state your opinions? No, of course not. Because that would lose your last desperate argument and then you'd be left with nothing. So you'll ignore this yet again. I'd be lying if I said I was surprised.

And is there any chance that you can have an argument without getting personal? I know it sucks to lose all the time, but you get so emotional over this stuff and I find it more than a little embarrassing. It almost makes me feel bad when I laugh at your rant-filled comments...almost.

repsac3 said...

Man, I thought the professor finally realized how absolutely ridiculous he was makng himself look by posting these silly rant-filled refutations...

I should've known better...
He'll never stop... ...ever.

At least he's entertaining, anyway... As long as he's willing to advertise his foolishness, I've no problem laughing at him or his tortured reasoning, and I don't feel the least bit bad about it.

Anonymous said...

Heck, I'm still waiting for his to address my demolition of his post. Indeed, the Wall Of Ignorance is mighty!

Hey, goat-fucker, let me throw down a challenge. You have made a factual claim: namely, Rev Wright preaches hate. That's a strong accusation. PROVE IT.

(Oh, and you're still wrong about the obviousness of opinion, and no amount of squirming or mud-slinging will hide it.)

John of the Dead said...

Sorry, that last one was me.

Americaneocon said...

"And finally, will you ever acknowledge that you've used the word "obvious" on your blog to state your opinions?"

We're not debating my use of words, duh!

As for your initial critcism:

"Donald, all you're doing at this point is repeating yourself endlessly, when AT BEST your argument can ONLY be that I shouldn't have used the word "obvious" in that sentence."

Ah, brilliant!

Of course that's what I'm doing, except you forgot that I've demolished not just this post, but you're entire "opinion versus fact" ellipticism from last summer.

And you're left with ... what? Feigned indignation? That's rich, Dr. Biowordsmith!!

I see how you don't even attempt to debunk Dr. Sanity, since, of course, she's got you nailed to a cross, M-FCKR!

Not only that, of course you've conceded. By relinquishing the point to abject silence on your end you've for all intent and purposes agreed with me that the traditional Daniel Webster-style usage is the correct one. As I said before, you did not say that "it seems" Obama views differ from Wright's. You said it's obvious, i.e., "self-evident" or "manifest." So, once again, let me insist that you show me your proof what Obama believes. You can no longer hide from you very own statements, and I'll repeat the point 100 TIMES until you condede that you're full of B.S., just like a slimed-out Texas-dragged mentally-challenged polecat!

Not only that, you're perfectly in line with all the postmodernism I mentioned previously:

"This intellectual strategy resulted in a pervasive cultural relativism and intellectual nihilism that permeated all aspects of society and intellectual thought. Words and language were redefined to mean whatever one wanted; history was deconstructed--ostensibly to expose it's lies, but really to render it meaningless; and the ideas and values that were the foundation of Western civilization were mocked and shown by postmodern "logic" to be no better than any other random ideas."

That it's right there!

But all you can do is ignore or deny it. I said the same thing last summer, but now that you're cornered like a greasy, stinked-out polecat you just BITCH, MOAN, AND COMPLAIN!!

That is so lefty!!

But don't forget I laid out systematically my multi-pronged (and enumerated, 1 ... 2 ... 3)takedown of your various prevarications and obtusions, so why - as you continue to evade - should I abandon a strategic point that's been so effective?

You've got nothing now, NOTHING!!

Concede, and call off your G-FCKNG POSSE ATTACKERS!!

You're pathetic, really. Like a losing loser if there ever was one!

Doctor Biobrain said...

We're not debating my use of words, duh!

Oh, really? Sorry. I forgot I had to ask your permission to find out what we can debate, Professor Fouglas. Wait a minute! This isn’t your classroom and I DON’T have to ask permission. And because your usage of the word was exactly the same as mine, it is ENTIRELY part of our debate. Now, perhaps you might finally try to explain why this isn’t a legitimate debate point, but both of us know you can’t. You’re undermined by your own words, and the best you can do is wish it away. How post-modernist of you.

And could you please show me where I ever conceded that only one dictionary definition counts? I don’t remember ever doing that and can’t imagine why I would. Of course, I suspect this is all part of your evasion ruse; whereby if you refuse to answer a point long enough, you imagine it’s been settled in your favor. No wonder you hate it so much when people call you evasive; because you imagine it’s some clever debate trick. You’re like some post-modernist kid you thinks he’s a genius at hide and seek because he can close his eyes and become invisible. Well sorry, Fouglas, but you can close your eyes all you want, but we still see you…and we’re laughing.

But getting back to your infatuation with Daniel Webster, I don’t remember seeing ANY dictionary that defined the word “obvious” as “self-evident” or “manifest,” and neither did you. The only source for that definition was YOU, when you kept reinventing the word to suit your needs; like the good post-modernist you are.

And again, your only argument can be that I used the wrong word. You say I should have written “it seems” instead of “it’s obvious.” That can be your only argument, as nothing else makes any sense. I obviously don’t agree with you on that, but that can be your ONLY point.

And look, you keep proving my point on that. You keep saying that I can’t prove my statement of Obama, and I agree with you completely on that. That’s what I’ve been saying the whole time: I can’t prove that statement. Why can’t I prove it? Because it was an opinion, dumbass. It can ONLY be opinion. Again, if you want to insist that this lengthy debate has centered solely on my use of one word, that’s your right. But I guess to a post-modernist like you, the debate is whatever you want it to be at any given time, so I guess you won’t listen to this either.

And finally, a “slimed-out Texas-dragged mentally-challenged polecat”?? Aren’t you taking these similes a bit too far? Why do you even bother? I know you’re insulting me. You know you’re insulting me. Everyone reading this knows you’re insulting me. So why do you imagine these silly little games are fooling anyone? You insult people, get over it. It happens. And I’m not sure what “Texas-dragged” means, though I guess it’s typical of you West Coast post-modernist elitists to insult those of us in Real America™.

BTW, liberals aren’t authoritarians, so I have no control over anyone else posting here. If they want to attack your goat fucking posse, that’s between you, them, and your goats. Besides, I think they’re funny, especially as you refuse to address anything they write. Too funny.

John of the Dead said...

So, once again, let me insist that you show me your proof what Obama believes.

Do we really have to go through this again?

"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."

And later:

"Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country."

Finally, from the much-hyped Merriam-Webster:

obvious adj easily discovered, seen, or understood

QED. Go back to fucking your goats.

repsac3 said...

Too funny, indeed...

If this nutjob wasn't a teacher, I'd be doing nothing but laughing. Since he is though, I weep for the future... There's no way an opinionated "my way or the highway" guy like Professor Donald Douglas can keep this same kinda shit out of his classroom. He's an embarrassment to the profession and to the state of American education on the world stage.

Doctor Biobrain said...

First off, Repsac, I'm still hoping that this guy is either lying when he claims to be that professor, or that this is some sort of Platoian reverse-psychology, and that all this is a form of educational parody intended to teach us how NOT to think.

But in any case, these sorts of authoritarian "my way or the highway" people never can convince anyone of anything. Because if they could actually explain anything, they wouldn't have to resort to bullying everyone into accepting their version of reality. And in this case, his conservative students will already agree with him and learn nothing, while his intelligent students will be disgusted and learn the Platoian reverse-psychology lesson I'm hoping this is. But there won't be anyone with a working brain who could attend his class and be brainwashed into believing this bull.

As I discovered years ago, it really doesn't require much intelligence to get a PhD or to become a college professor. You've just got to be tenacious; a quality Donald has in spades. But most of us prefer to get our degrees and join the real world, and don't feel the need to prove anything by getting a doctorate. And assuming that Donald's who he says he is, that's likely why he became a professor: Because he lost too many arguments and imagines that his credentials somehow bolster his arguments. Authoritarians are like that.

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biowordsmith:

I've never once mentioned my degree status, or appealed to my position as a professor.

You guys do that, and it's a form of argumentum vericandium, which is the logical flaw of appealing to a higher authority.

I don't think you bring much to the debate by pulling up some dumb academic discourses on definitions or what not, but that's not my problem. It's yours, and a completely foolhardy, non-compelling one at that. You're not so great of a debater, and you've proved it once and for all with this slur.

As I said before, I won't be surprised when this post is deleted, becuase I think you've embarrassed yourself, but I guess why you blog pseudonymously. I don't, which Repsac3 substantiated by linking to my online sources.

But all you've got is irrationality, frankly. The simple matter of all this is that I've hammered you up and down, using the comments of your own visitor ("John") to show not only that your "opinion versus fact" dichotomy is unsound, and thus your debate last summer was entirely bogus, but also that in the current thread you're completely inconsistent in your usage and arguments. That's pure, unadulterated hack-age - totally, no, maliciously, inconsistent and opportunistic.

You don't, again, question definitional accuracies, in any case. We are agreed that "obvious" is just as you use it: That which is clear (as Lanny Davis uses it) and self-evident.

I've added, of course, since you're accusing me of being a one-trick pony, additional, reprised criticism of your postmodernist elliptical debate style, which mounts low-down prevarications and evasions be simply - voila! - changes the definitions of words. That to you try to wave away, since you're clearly incapable of deflecting it with superior logic or argumentation. You're done!!

Plus, I've already said that when I say things like "M-FCKR" it's only an exclamation to my point, as if I stubbed my toe or bit my lip. I mean, what can you do, when rigorous analytical, substantiated AND WIDELY ACCEPTED rules and techniques are thrown out the window by nihilist Wright-backing apologists for the "bitter" America-bashing Democratic Party insiders club?

This is the place!

So, you're back to ad hominems. But you yourself said that was a cheap method of interlocution. Remember "nutjob"? You tried to exclude it from discussion because the reference is from prior debate, but the truth is that's your style when the tricks up your sleeve have run out.

It's time for you to quit name-calling. If you can't defend your statement that it's "obvious" what Obama thinks about Wright's hatred you shouldn't have said it. Instead, you're left with tautologies and logical violations up the wazoo of a stinking Texas-dragged slimy sleazebag polecat!

That's a descripion and an analogy, of course, since I don't descend to the depths of third-party elliptical attacks as set forth here, a pure greasy set up facilitating claims of plausible deniability.

That's not good. You've got nothing so basically you're just free-ranging mindlessly, stream of consciousness gobbledygook about how this guy's a "Ph.D." when I've never said so one way or the other.

When you're down to attacking the veracity of credentials it's nothing more than personal attacks.

John of the Dead said...

So, goat fucker, am I to take it that you concede fully to my point? Your silence equals consent, which means your utter capitulation. Since you've conceded to me, I don't see why you're still posting these inanities to the Doc; we're making practically the same argument, except mine is improved with 75% more vitriol!

Doctor Biobrain said...

Uhm, Donald? Would you mind actually responding to what I wrote to you, rather than what I wrote to Repsac? Please? I mean, you didn’t even make an argument this time. It was just one long ranting insult against me.

And as a reminder, “ad hominem” does not mean “insult.” Similarly, there was no “argumentum vericandium” because I wasn’t making any kind of argumentum at all. How many times does this need to be explained to you? It’s only a problem if someone tries to refute your argument with a flawed argument. But I wasn’t trying to refute any argument; nor was I making an argument. I was just talking about you in a derogatory way to somebody else. He mentioned your occupation, and I responded to that; just as you’ve written of my occupation in a derogatory way. But I guess you’ll say that’s different, because that was you talking about me, and this was me talking about you; which any good post-modernist would know is totally different.

And btw, the “fact versus opinion” thing is real. I’m sorry. There are differences between facts and opinions and they are mutually exclusive things. It’s really about time you learned that.

Anyway, if you’d like to respond to my comment, that’d be great. Here’s a recap:

1) Can you explain why your own usage of the word “obvious” is irrelevant to this discussion? And try not to be too post-modernist about it.

2) Can you show where I conceded that only one dictionary counts?

3) Can you show me the dictionary in which “obvious” is defined as “self-evident” or “manifest”?

4) And finally, will you ever explain how the word “obvious” turns an opinion into a fact?

And that’s it. That’s a quickie summary of the points you need to address from my previous comment to you. Are you capable of doing so? Or will you continue with your condescending indignation, which has really been working out so well for you? Oh, and let me tell you, your faux confidence is totally sapping my willpower and I’m on the verge of recanting everything I’ve ever said in my life. So feel free to ignore all my questions yet again and just keep working your freestyle insult magic and perhaps your next comment might be the winning one.

Americaneocon said...

Note, Dr. Biowordsmith, that I predicted this new dodge: "Plausible deniability."

Had this been in another comment thread, your denial would have been credible. But come on:

"As I discovered years ago, it really doesn't require much intelligence to get a PhD or to become a college professor. You've just got to be tenacious; a quality Donald has in spades. But most of us prefer to get our degrees and join the real world, and don't feel the need to prove anything by getting a doctorate. And assuming that Donald's who he says he is, that's likely why he became a professor..."

Your problem is that you don't have any defense.

As I've repeatedly said, my use of polecat is a comparative reference, and I've facetiously used profanity as an exclamation, though note how I've never once called you personally a four-letter word.

You and Repsac3 were made for each other with all of your elliptical personal smears - and that's after citing my own outstanding RMP evaluations!

Now, my usage of "obvious" is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. I'm not arguing that it's obvious what Obama knows, you are. If I had some whacked out lefty attacking me with half a degree of wisdom on my use of "obvious" in a post I wrote, perhaps I'd either defend my point or concede. Unlike you, I don't have a lot at stake. That is, my posts are rooted in empiricism and reason, and frankly, I've made corrections and apologies in the past when I've screwed up.

But that's not at issue here - my own language usage - so your smuggling what I wrote is just another red herring. Imagine if a scholar was responding to criticism of his own extremely controversial findings by saying to his critics, "but hey, what about what you said in such and such monograph..."

That's laughing stock material.

You're left with that because that's all you've got - nothing!

In any case, you've said - one more time - that it's obvious - "clear" - what Obama knows. That's your opinion, sure, an opinion, of course, that to be credible has to be verifiable. Otherwise, you're just making one more fraudulent, completed hacked, bogus, wild-eyed leap of postmodernist imagination.

I'm not letting you get away with it.

As for definitions, go back and read this thread. I've left links to my definition and I've cited hard-copy Webster's sources, considered the most authoritative by language experts.

Not only that, your own guy, "John," agrees with my definition when he says:

"obvious - easily discovered, seen, or understood."

That's quoting "John" from five posts up, and while he's confused as to disabusing me, or something, frankly that's exactly how you're using "obvious" - EASILY DISCOVERED!!

So, if it's so easy, let's see your evidence...

This has gone on long enough. I've pinned you down with one arm behind my back. Even your own commenters are making you look bad, and then you appeal to plausible deniability to avoid the illogic of argumentum vericandium.

This is a bunch of postmodern garbage.

You're a lot like Obama, when he said one more time last night that he wasn't at the sermons when Wright uttered his unpatriotic sacrilege. He won't renounce Trinity, and either will you. Not only that, you're apparently not man enough to say, "you know, you've got a point ... I was a little loose in my discussion."

So, now's the time to save face. Concede your intemperate use of "obvious," call it a day, and you can get on to your next debate, and I can get on with something more meaningful than pinning down some nihilist who's acting like a stinked-up polecat!!

Doctor Biobrain said...

I don’t have any defense of what? I insulted you. I have no problem with that. I’ve insulted you before and I’ll insult you again…and again…and again. That’s a promise. I have no problem with insults, assuming they don’t get out of hand, and fail to understand why you think they’re so horrible. But my comment to Repsac involved no ad hominem or any other logical fallacy, because I wasn’t making an argument. Fallacies involve faulty arguments. But I was just talking to somebody else about you and wasn’t attempting to refute anything you’ve written when I wrote that. I was just stating my opinion of you; not making an argument. And fallacies don’t apply to opinions.

And I really DO think you’re a nutjob. I’ve said that repeatedly and have no problem with saying that. But at least I’m honest about my insults. You keep imagining that if you use the word “like” in your sentence that it allows you to cleverly hide your insult, as if you truly believed my behavior was similar to a “sleazy, slimely Texas-dragged polecat” which is most surely a meaningless comparison. How many actual polecats have you debated, anyway? Wait, don’t tell me. I’m afraid the answer might not be “none.” Not that your insults bother me in the least, as I couldn’t care less what you think about me. I just find your non-insult insults to be a tad hypocritical.

Now back to our regularly scheduled debate. OF COURSE your usage of the word “obvious” is relevant. Because you used it exactly the same way I did. How’s this: Imagine if a scholar criticized another scholar’s work, even though the first scholar did the exact same thing the second scholar did. Like if the first scholar criticized the second scholar for using the word “obvious” to describe his opinion on dinosaurs, yet the first scholar ALSO used the word “obvious” to describe his opinion on dinosaurs.

Are you honestly suggesting that’s not relevant? Now that’s laughingstock material. The point is that you used the word the same way that I used it, so you have no right to criticize the way I used it; especially as I believe we both used it properly. Now, if you think your use of the word was “intemperate,” then I guess you can say so now. But for you to suggest that your usage of the word isn’t relevant is entirely laughable. Sorry, but that’s what we call in the biz “post-modernism.” Apparently, opinions can only be obvious when you make them, but not me. Right.

Oh, and speaking of laughingstock material:
That's your opinion, sure, an opinion, of course, that to be credible has to be verifiable.

AH HA HA!! HA HA HA! HA HA HA!

I can’t believe you finally admitted it. You don’t know what opinions are. But as a reminder: Opinions aren’t verifiable, opinions aren’t verifiable, opinions aren’t verifiable. How many times does that need to be said? Facts are verifiable. Opinions aren’t. It’s that simple. I can explain what the basis for my opinion is, which I’ve done repeatedly, but I can’t prove my opinion. There’s nothing to verify. It’s an opinion, dumbass. That’s the very point I was trying to make to you the first time I made the mistake of commenting at your blog: You can’t prove opinions. That’s why they’re opinions.

And while I don’t have access to your beloved Webster’s dictionary which, as we all know, is the most authoritative of all dictionaries (per Donald Fouglas’ Hierarchy of Dictionaries); I will provide confirmation of this as I turn to my paper version of American Heritage (which can also be found here) which states:

Opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

Not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. Yet you keep asking me to prove my opinion. How wonderful.

And so now you’re just admitting that after TWENTY-FIVE COMMENTS, the best you can do is try to get me to concede that I used ONE WORD incorrectly, in a sentence that wasn’t important to my point. I mean, I haven’t conceded any points because I’ve been right about everything, but now you’re essentially admitting that the only point you’re willing to still fight for is my supposed misuse of ONE WORD. Right. And even at that, you’re wrong.

Let’s just make this simple by using the one and only Donald Fouglas approved definition of the word: "obvious - easily discovered, seen, or understood." And with the word “or” in there, that means I get to pick my definition, and I’ll take “understood”. And to make this easy for you, I’ll rewrite my original sentence to include the actual word from the definition. And that’d be “It's easily understood that 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.

How’s that? That makes sense and still says exactly what I was trying to say. Obama has stated repeatedly that he doesn’t agree with his pastor on these matters, and everything Obama has said confirms that he doesn’t believe these things. That seems pretty easy to understand to me. Down right obvious, in fact. Sure, you don’t understand, but that’s not terribly surprising. Now, if you choose to think Obama’s lying when he says these things, that’s your right. But in my opinion, it’s obvious that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor, because I choose to think he’s being honest.

And what about you? Will you concede that “obvious” doesn’t mean “manifest” or “self-evident,” as you’ve stated repeatedly? That was really your only hope, to try to obfuscate matters by changing the definition into one that worked better for your point. But me, not being a fool, wouldn’t fall for your obvious ruse. But damn, there’s that word again: Obvious. I guess you’ll now demand that I “prove” that your ruse was easily discovered.

But again, this is nothing. This is by far the longest commentboard I’ve ever had, and yet you’re now relegated to arguing this one minor point of semantics that wasn’t even important to my post. You tell me that you’ll finally allow me to move on, just as long as I pretend as if you’ve somehow won. But not a chance. I’ve won every point I’ve made on this board and am much too honest to ever give you your meaningless victory on even this one word.

Sorry Fouglas, but you’ll just have to concede this one. You got whupped good by a liberal and it just hurts too much to let it go. But you’ll have to. You have no point. Just as you had no point the last time we debated. But the problem is the same: You think opinions can be right and can be used to disprove other people’s opinions. And there’s nothing that can get you out of this trap you created. I never wanted this debate. The first time I read your N=1 post, I assumed you were some bright dude who made a minor mistake. I’ve long since realized this is a major flaw in your reasoning: You just don’t know what opinions are and insist that everyone agree with yours.

But again, I didn’t do any of this. I’m just the lucky guy who got to laugh at you while you made a fool of yourself by defending indefensible positions. But all you have to do is admit that opinions can’t be right or wrong, and you’re halfway there. Then, you can admit that opinions can be obvious; which you obviously believe because you’ve described your opinions as being obvious on your blog.

And as the icing on this cake, you can admit that it’s possible that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor; which is what your original point on all this was. You were of the opinion that because Obama attended that church that he MUST agree with everything his pastor said; which is an absurdity. NOBODY agrees with everything their pastor said. NOBODY. Yet, that was your entire point: To insist that his attendance at that church was proof that everything he said to the contrary must be a lie.

And none of this is hard, except you just can’t bring yourself to admit you were wrong. You’re hardwired to believe that all liberals are wrong; therefore I can’t be right. But I am right. Sorry. Again, you don’t have to agree with my opinion of Obama; but you have no right to say that my opinion is wrong. Nor can you prove that N=1’s crazy opinion was wrong. But again, you’re not even fighting for ANY of this stuff now. You’re just wanting me to lie and pretend that you’ve at least won this semantics debate; and even there you’re wrong. It’s really quite sad.

Stinked-up polecat. I'm curious, how do you think I'm supposed to react to that? Is it supposed to irritate me? Do you somehow imagine it'll convince me I'm wrong? I don't get it. Why do you keep writing that? It just makes you look silly and I get a laugh every time you write it. Is that how I'm supposed to feel?

Americaneocon said...

Eh, well, no I won't concede any such thing. I've pointed out repeatedly that you've changed the meaning of "obvious," not me. As I showed in the last comment, even "John" backed me.

As for insults, ad hominem is Latin for personal attack, and while you're pretending that you're having a side conversation, it's still an attack on my character in the context of THIS debate. As such, it simply reveals how deeply I've gotten under your skin.

I mean, really, to suggest that "it really doesn't require much intelligence to get a PhD or to become a college professor. You've just got to be tenacious; a quality Donald has in spades," just four three comments down from a dialog you were having with me - after Repsac3 continued to get some attention here in his piddly mindless spitballs against me - is sheer hypocrisy, or idiocy. Probably both actually, but it's hard to keep track. You're so far off the map, you alternate between mental effluence and mental constipation.

I concede though in your cleverness to mine the endless escape paths found in the nihilist fantasyland of postmodern metaphysics. You've yet to address the point - remember Dr. Sanity? - showing your vile impotence, so I'm happy to come back and slap you around like some jonesing intellectual bitch who needs to be tied off quick or risk complete irrelevance.

It's a losing battle of course. You're making no traction whatsoever.

I mean look at you:

"This is by far the longest commentboard I’ve ever had, and yet you’re now relegated to arguing this one minor point of semantics that wasn’t even important to my post."

HaHaHa - HAHAHA - HaHaHa!!!

Hammering yourself again, I see. Can't you keep track of your own thread?!!

ROFLMFAO!!

Here's you, way back, close to 100 comments ago:

"...what game of “semantics” am I playing? Are you even aware of what that word means? I’m not playing with the meaning of words. It’s the same with your insistence that insults are “ad hominem”. It’s like these are words people use against you in debates, yet you fail to understand their meaning."

Bobby Fisher, you're not, let's just say. "Semantics," M-FCKR! If, for example, I really didn't know what I was talking about, that I "failed to understand" word meanings (a standard red herring over here), then why would you employ the very word I levied against you to attack your own postmodern epistomology?

You've just proved my case, AGAIN!!

You see, every time I've brought in your own commenter, "John," you ignore him, and, frankly, it just makes you look really bad.

And all of this long train of effluence about "the icing on this cake..." of how I agreed an opinion can be wrong...

Sure, and opinion can be wrong, and that's exactly what I've said all along, so thank you for the validation. You're wrong. It's not "obvious" that Obama disagrees with Wright's America-hatred.

Besides that, again, because you've got nothing else, you continue to ATTACK me for my main thrust of argument. What you don't do is provide a credible reason for me to give it up - plus, you again ignore how multifaceted my case is against.

You've conceded by default that last summer's argument was bogus (#1); you've shown that your use of obvious is indeed non-verifiable, and hence Obama can be perfectly assumed to be a hate bashing, God damning nihilist like his pastor, of whom he sat in the pews of twenty years (#2); you're as well a lousy multi-culti postmodernist, and you've yet to address the issue, which as far as I can tell, you're intellectually incapable of handling, no offense, although you've "clearly" - used here like Lanny Davis - just proved your own erroneousnesss #3).

I could go on, but I've tied you up in knots already.

It's like I said before, if and when I make a mistake or if and when I see the power of superior argumentation, I'll acknowledge it and move on. It's no sweat off my back. Indeed, to continue the debate last summer, I had noted you had a piont - after I deployed endless evidence to the contrary - that, okay, an opinion couldn't valdate an assertion. But, of course, when I used that against you, the logic that is, that you, yourself, were so proud to deploy, it was all a "moot" point.

Do you even know what "moot" means? Of course not, because it didn't apply. You remember "tit-for-tat" from last summer, right? That's how I pinned you down then:

"Regarding judges, I'm fairly convinced that with the exception of a crooked judge or jury, they all use their judgment to determine if a witness is telling the truth. What else would they do? Flip a coin? I didn't understand this point of yours. Judges and juries are permitted to ignore witness testimony that they don't find credible and this isn't considered a problem. And this applies to our case where N=1 ignored testimony she didn't find credible, and you then denounced her for ignoring it."

Fairly convinced, remember. You had no independent verification for your claims, but were happy to apply a different standard of substantiation to what you said in contrast to my agument, to which I replied:

"Now, back to your points about judges:

You make a huge concession to my unimpeachable rebuttal on witness testimony on my page:

“Regarding judges, I'm fairly convinced that with the exception of a crooked judge or jury, they all use their judgment to determine if a witness is telling the truth.”

Now that’s gold! You’re “fairly convinced”? That doesn’t sound too authoritative! Fairly convinced is the same as saying you don’t have enough power of independent verification to make a compelling foundation for your points. You protest vehemently that we cannot rely on opinions to verify a point. See here:

“Yep, that's right. We cannot "prove" that Bush truly cares for the troops, as we are not mind-readers and can't know what he's thinking. Therefore we cannot use his thoughts as evidence, because we don't know what his thoughts are.”

The same could be said to your eminently unsure point about judges. We are not mind-readers: Your point is an opinion, strongly couched in uncertainty. It is not the “fact” standard you have required for substantiation. This section blows up much of your intellectual thrust."

So you see, it doesn't matter. You'll squeal and squirm any way you can, and even "John" called you on it:

"Someone's statement is only an opinion, not a fact, and thus cannot provide proof of an assertion. We'd need independent confirmation, in other words real evidence."

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, goat fucker. Sen Obama's opinion about his own opinion is inadmissible because it's... opinion? Is that right? In other words, you have arbitrarily disallowed the *ONLY* possible source for an answer to your question? In other other words, you've established a non-falsifiable statement, which, as I'm sure you're aware with you vast knowledge of debating terms, non-falsifiable statements cannot be logically debated. So you set the situation up for failure regardless of position. Great job, goat fucker!"

Note how I basically called you on this the same way last summer, when you started with your hypocritical claims about judges and facts. Yep, just like "John of the Dead."

I don't forget that you're slimy in arguments, just like a greased polecat.

And for all of your protestations my references to "polecat" are just that, references, or analogies, to be more precise.

You're still pinned, and what have you got? What are you left with? Trying to smuggle my own posts in an make me defend my use of "obvious"? Well, if I'd said it's obvious what Obama's views are, I'd say, "sure, okay," I concede: "It's obvious that Obama can't stand his contry, that he's full of loathing, not only for himself, but for the plain, everday working class folk that he insists are 'bitter,' but he'll only do that in a S.F. fundraiser, where he thinks everyone will nod their head in nihilist agreement."

I've had you cornered for a long time, man. You get more animated when you think you've cleared the gauntlet - that you've got away from the danger of being exposed as a complete fraud.

But just like a polecat, who's brain isn't very large, you're confused and self-deluded. The headlights of reason have stopped you cold on the yellow line of the highway of cogency. You're getting splattered on the pavement, and sadly, it's happened all so fast, you don't know what hit you.

So, now that you're incapable of conceding, for some kind of warped pride, I'll expect to see this post deleted, which would naturally erase the evidence of your demon-like legermain that's been played here ad nauseum.

I'm done with you. How I deigned to this level is beyond me, as I don't need any validation from playing some interminable game of denial, on, and on, and on...

repsac3 said...

I'll expect to see this post deleted, which would naturally erase the evidence of your demon-like legermain that's been played here ad nauseum.

You're expectation will be in vain, Professor. As Bio's said a few times now, not only won't he delete it, he (& I, & probably John, too) are all too glad to highlight it to others as evidence of a blindly partisan wingnut mind at "work." If we could, we'd send it to every student you ever have taught, are teaching now, or might ever teach in future, on the grounds that they deserve to know what they're paying for. The more successful you imagine yourself to be here, the better it gets, so by all means keep going... 8>)

I'm done with you. How I deigned to this level is beyond me, as I don't need any validation from playing some interminable game of denial, on, and on, and on...

Unlikely... You can't seem to resist displaying this sorry excuse for argumentation... I've little doubt you'll be back to explain all over again how thoroughly you've trounced every argument ever offered... ...and the comedy shall continue...

Americaneocon said...

Repsac3: With all due respect, as I've said before, you're not an original thinker, and frankly I don't think you're capable of analyzing an intellectual arugment.

I look at your blog and you've got, what, Bono videos or some other whacked out stuff.

I've repeatedly shown on my blog that Obama's backed by radicals, and you try to wave a hand but offer no rebuttal other than to say "I don't believe you ... you're a wingnut."

That's not so compelling, especially now that it's been confirmed that Code Pink is bundling for the Obama campaign. Pretty hard to deny that the most implacable America-bashers are in the tank.

And it's amazing too that all you can do is question my teaching credentials and authority, which of course is your opinion that I'm out there, while simulaneously you link to my RMP evaluations which are overwhelmingly positive: "Great professor" all around. Not only that, you have no clue how many students who've come to my office to complain about the indoctination they're getting by all of the "campus progressive" professors who're sending their students to downtown L.A. to march against the war with the neo-Stalinist International ANSWER. But nope, nobody has an Obama shirt on, so that's proof that they can't support the Democrats.

Oh yeah, that's quality education. These are the same professors who don't want students to take standardized exams because they're "culturally biased." Yep, quadratic equations are racist.

But you're a real expert, so I'll take if from you. Ha, right?

I've ignored you, but since you've facilitated here the fluffy nihilist trickster ad hominem plausbibly deniable attacks on my credibility, I do have to note that you're like a darned flunky on this site.

I noticed too that you stopped visiting my page because my commenters slapped you down silly.

Get a life, bro. Those "change" videos on your page are hopelessly utopian. "Imagine" that....

Doctor Biobrain said...

Uh, Donald? You’re the one who kept insisting that “obvious” meant “manifest” and “self-evident,” yet now can’t show ANY definition that says that. While I keep using dictionaries as well as your own blog to show that the word usage was correct. And again, you’re now down to arguing this debate on semantics only. Can you give any example where I’ve changed the meaning? I can give many examples of you doing that, including where you wrote it meant something was “universally recognized.” Will you ever admit that you did this? Or will you just continue to attack me for doing the things you’ve done?

And I guess I wasn’t aware that our debate involved time travel. I mean, when I first kept saying that we weren’t having a debate on semantics, we WEREN’T having one. It was only after you started playing games with the word “obvious” that we started having a debate on semantics, and then I stopped saying that we weren’t having a semantics debate because we started having one. So I guess I’m at fault for not using my psychic powers to predict that you’d turn this into a semantics game, where you keep changing the definition of ONE WORD because you realized you didn’t have any other argument.

Oh, and just so you know, I’ve been using the big words that you use but don’t understand throughout this debate, as a way of mocking you. I’m continually amazed at your inability to understand mockery, sarcasm, or irony; which have been employed in every comment I’ve made against you during this exchange. Do I really need to explain each time I’m being sarcastic?

Similarly, when I used the term “fairly convinced” last summer, that was sarcasm. And I explained that at the time. And when I pointed out that I was being sarcastic and that I was TOTALLY CERTAIN about this, you insisted that I was playing games by changing what I said. But I wasn’t. It was sarcasm and I was mocking you for not knowing how judges make decisions. But as we all know, judges issue “opinions” based upon facts and testimony. They don’t pretend as if their judgments are facts.

And even then, you were playing games with words. For you, my use of the phrase “fairly certain” somehow undermined everything I was saying. And even after I explained what I meant, you continue to insist that this ONE PHRASE is more important than everything else I wrote. That it also was more important than the truth. In truth, opinions cannot be facts, even if I say they are facts, which I never did. Similarly, judges issue opinions based upon their judgment; a fact that doesn’t change no matter how I describe it. But for you, my casual use of any word can forever change the way reality works, and you’ll use my supposed mistake to trump reality; even if you use my words out of context. That is the essence of post-modernism. For you, the use of ONE WORD is more important than reality.

As for “ad hominem,” in Latin it means “to the person” not “personal attack” and is only important as far as it involves attacking the person as a way of refuting an argument, instead of attacking the argument. But it needn’t be an insult at all. If you wrote “Your argument is automatically faulty because you’re a liberal,” that involves no insult at all, but is an ad hominem argument. But again, I have no problem with insults and fail to understand why you keep acting as if this proves something. Insults by themselves aren’t a logical fallacy, and when people say “ad hominem” they mean logical fallacy; not “insult;” assuming they’re using the word properly. And while I never use ad hominem arguments, I have no problem with insults. Again, insults aren’t logical fallacies.

Beyond that, what exactly were you offended by? Because I said you were tenacious? Is that an insult?

And where did you ever get the idea that I’ve asked you to defend your own usage of the word “obvious”? I never did. I was using your usage of the word “obvious” to show that you use the word to mean the same thing I did. I only asked you to explain yourself because you kept saying it wasn’t relevant, but refused to explain why. And it’s obvious that you have no explanation for why it’s irrelevant. But we used the same word in the same way, so you shouldn’t have any complaint. Both of us think opinions can be obvious, and that should be the end of the story…were it not for your stubborn pride, which forces you to continue to pretend words only mean what you want them to mean.

And can explain how I “conceded by default” that our previous argument was bogus? What does “your use of obvious is indeed non-verifiable” even mean? I wrote that opinions are non-verifiable and that I felt that my opinion was obvious; but my use of obvious was verifiable, because we can all read that I used the word; and thus, we can verify that we used it. But I don’t think that’s what you meant to say.

And I agree that you can assume that Obama is a hate-bashing god-damning nihilist if you want; but I am of the opinion that he’s not. And that’s the thing: For as much as you now pretend you’ve got my argument from last summer; you’re still wrong. You still think you have proof that Obama agrees with his pastor, and insist that I have to prove that he doesn’t. But that’s not how this works. We can’t “prove” either opinion because opinions can’t be proven or verified. I have one opinion, you have the opposite opinion; and neither of us can disprove the other. And that’s what I’ve been saying the whole time. Remember, your entire argument rests on my use of ONE WORD, and it’s a word that doesn’t mean what you pretend it means. And that’s it. If opinions can be obvious, then you have no point at all. I gave an opinion, you disagreed with that opinion, and that’s the end of it.

And finally, your analogical insults are just plain dumb. I’m sorry, but they make you look like a third-grader (and yes, that’s an insult, even if it was analogical). Are you really saying that you know how polecats debate? You’ve debated slimy polecats? And when you say I’m “confused and self-deluded” those aren’t insults? Yet you take offense when I call you tenacious? Or when you call me a “nihilist,” which I most assuredly am not. Nor is Wright or Obama. Do you even know what that word means? Of course not. To you, it’s an insult that you fling out at your enemies because you imagine that it’s not name-calling. But to call someone a nihilist when they’re not one is an insult.

But again, it’s obvious that your use of “like” is just a silly ruse and that you think I’m slimy and “Texas-dragged” (whatever that means), and trying to suggest that I’m acting like an animal that doesn’t debate is absurd. But again, you can call me a polecat, or M-FCKR, or whatever you want. I don’t care. My only issue is with your hypocrisy, that you think it’s wrong for me to call you tenacious, but it’s ok for you to say I act like an animal that I obviously don’t act like. But the insults don’t bother me in the least, outside of your obvious hypocrisy. Why would an insult bother me? Only little kids get hurt by insults, and we teach them a “sticks and stones” incantation to deal with it. If my insults of you hurt, you should try using it yourself. And if my insults don’t hurt you, why do you care if I use them?

And just so you know I WILL NEVER, EVER DELTE THIS POST, how many times do I need to explain that? Only a complete hack deletes posts or comments because they feel uncomfortable about them. As usual, it just sounds like you’re talking into a mirror when you continue to insult me, and aren’t even talking to me at all. Frankly, I’m just waiting for it to end, so I can write a new post highlighting your inanities. It’ll be plenty fun and chock full of insults; I can assure you of that. But the main point will be educational, as I use you as an extreme example of the whacked-out conservative mind. I’m assuming you’re planning the same thing, though your post won’t be nearly as educational or well written, and your insults will surely be lamer.

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biowordsmith:

You should at least check your own thread, as I previously left a link to this defintion of "obvious," from dictionary.com:

"easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge; evident; plain, manifest, clear, palpable, unmistakable"

So for you to say, "You’re the one who kept insisting that “obvious” meant “manifest” and “self-evident,” yet now can’t show ANY definition that says that," is total - and I mean TOTAL - hypocrisy and deliberate obfuscation and dissembling designed to throw your antagonist off on another wild goosechase of your own red herring evasions.

And you actually think you're "winning" this (mock) debate? Boy, that's truly magalomanical. At least Repsac3 pats you on the back to confirm your delusions.

But let's just get down to the nitty gritty of disambiguation!

What is this with semantics? First you attack me for not "knowing" what it means, and now you've adopted the word in its entirety to try to squeam out from the crack of irrationalist pressure within which you're irretrievably squeezed.

You write:

"I can give many examples of you doing that, including where you wrote it meant something was 'universally recognized.'"

Well, hello, there's your definition upstairs here, again: "easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge..." If you're picky, I'll take off "universally." But you're still stuck with "open to view or knowledge."

But YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

Remember, I already provided this definition, but you're avoiding previous iterations of this thread to stretch out your comment count even more. That's pathetic.

And you yourself had to go to some "hypodermic" junky's dictionary - like some hopped up brain-addled tied-off crazy zombie effluent-pile of a debater - to get this: "4) easily perceived by the senses or grasped by the mind; 'a perceptible sense of expectation in the court.'"

So, by your own deployment of obvious, Obama's statements are "easily perceived." Okay, good, we're agreed - like I've said before! - because I'm saying that you've argued what Obama believes is "easily seen, recognized, or understood." So, sinces "seeing" something involves the brain's cognitive perception of light, which fuses through the mind's circuitry to make an recognizable image, which becomes a factual reality to those who've perceived that element, you're arguing an empirical question when you say it's obvious what Obama's thoughts on Wright's nihilist black liberationist hatreds are.

Here's you from the original post:

"I failed to see why Obama should be held responsible for what his pastor said. It's obvious Obama doesn't believe these things."

Now, there's your own definition, and since you're stating what you believe to be Obama's position, which you say is "self-evident," all I've asked is for you to provide the EVIDENCE your own logic demands.

What is so hard about this for you to understand? This is straightforward reasoning, and just think I'm not so damned lazy as to go back up into this thread and actually RE-POST earlier iterations.

So, as is your sneaky wont, you're now using the word "semantics" when you once said that I didn't know what it means, and that was after I said you play word games, that is word meanings, or semantics.

That's a pathetic attempt to try to turn it all around, getting out from your own denials of the word. As I've said all along, you make rules of debate, or you evade definintions of words, to suit your plans of never conceding a point of superior argumentation. You make oblique references to some a third party out of an attempt at plausible deniability that I don't have the "intelligence" to be a professor. That's underhanded.

Then you write, in total ellipticism:

"And can explain how I “conceded by default” that our previous argument was bogus? What does “your use of obvious is indeed non-verifiable” even mean? I wrote that opinions are non-verifiable and that I felt that my opinion was obvious; but my use of obvious was verifiable, because we can all read that I used the word; and thus, we can verify that we used it. But I don’t think that’s what you meant to say."

You're getting worse than Alice in Wonderland here. This is "Doors of Perception" stuff - I mean it's like you're one some mind-expanding substance to write a sentence like that. That certainly seems crazy, but of course that's just an observation.

I can say that you've conceded multiple points in this thread by your own non-responses. The rest of the gobbledygook only a warped mind could decipher.

In any case, now you've got this additional dodge:

"You still think you have proof that Obama agrees with his pastor..."

Nice try. I've already noted that I've provided information to support my beliefs. You reject them, fine. So why do you keep arguing the point? As I've said, you've made, by your own wording at the post, an empirical statement. But I allege that your point is impossible to verify, and it's true. Your view is not falsifiable, and thus is completely bogus. But rather than say so, you just say, well that's my opinion. Again, the point is not that you have an opinion. Perhaps you do. The point is the way you've posed this post is you've alleged that Obama's views are open for all to see, and if that's the case, you must have some mutually verifiable data which is self-evident for all to see to subtantiate what Obama believes.

If you dont' have that, just say so, and we can both go home. You can't stop calling me in third party references an unqualified nutjob of a professor. You can also stop making false allegtions that I appealed to my Ph.D. credential as form of authority when I didn't.

And frankly, you can stop your deceipt. I've caught you in a self-contradiction a number of times in this thread, on "opinion versus fact" from last summer, on "semantics" in these last few posts, and now on the your deployment of the word obvious.

If you deny the logic in my entry here, I'll just keep posting it for all to see, because the more I write, the clearer it gets that all you've got is more evasions, dodges, wild side-steps and prevarications to get out from ever ackknowledging that, frankly, you're an anti-American hack who should be denouncing Wright's hatred rather than endorsing it.

As I've said, Obama won't do it, and it's costing him. Even Lanny Davis argued from the same premises as you, but you've avoided the point with more endless repetitions of the red herrings you've deployed all along.

There's no one to help you, Dr. Biowordmith.

And then there's this:

"My only issue is with your hypocrisy, that you think it’s wrong for me to call you tenacious, but it’s ok for you to say I act like an animal that I obviously don’t act like. But the insults don’t bother me in the least, outside of your obvious hypocrisy."

I don't care if you think I'm tenacious, and even I did, you might actually cite my objection.

But my analogies are completely sound. Peope use animal analogies all the time. Take tenacious as a bulldog, to use your own favorite word to which you allege I'm offended. Bulldog's are tenacious. Googling "tenacious like a bulldog" gets 47,900 hits.

It looks like animal analogies are pretty common, and my usage is that you're slimy like a polecat, whether they're stinky is another matter. If you google "slimy polecat" you'll find 83,200 hits.

And you're protesting this? Not to mention the use of "M-FCKR." People use profanity as an exclamation. Some of the world's most popular novelists lace their tomes with vile language, which spices things up.

So, you have no decent, even rational basis for ojecting. I mean, I haven't even insulted you. I've compared YOUR BEHAVIOR which is an analytical point. But you say right here that you insult me and you plan to continue to insult me.

No integrity, Dr. Biowordsmith, none whatsovever.

To conclude: This comment is as clear as things get. I've provided the evidence you require for definitions and references to the previous iterations that you've deliberately and conveniently ommitted from your responses. You're essentially a postmodern nihilist in your syle of response and pseudo-agrumentation - that's an analytical observation, not a slur. I've even left quotes laying out the intellectual basis for these points, with links, and you're entirely flummoxed, leaving you to go back one more time to allege that I'm a one-trick pony. Even if I was, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, since that riposte is your only way of desperately trying to get out from being hopelessly pinned to the mat.

One last thing. I'm going just say it outright: You're dishonest. That's not an attack. It's a factual obsvervation that is supported with my comments here.

Note too that for all of your attacks on me for being deranged and unqualified as a unintelligent professor, folks on the web who actually use positivist reasoning to make arguments disagree with you:

"Donald Douglas has two fantastic articles up where he takes this [sic] sycophant drones of ignorance behind the woodshed and leaves them there to wallow in pain and hate. The articles are entitled Antiwar Rush to Judgment on Alleged Pentagon Surrender Report and Distorted Antiwar Propaganda. Both pieces are must reads due to his keen flare to detail and pointing out the obvious to the oblivious - that would be to the anti-Americanist hacks."

Link: http://www.anewtone.com/2008/04/war-news-mcclatchey-news-anti.html

A NEWT ONE

So, while I don't appeal to my own credentials to make a case, I don't mind pointing you to people who find some of posts just fine and dandy - awesome even!

It's time for your to concede, as you should know there's plenty of ammunition against your slop left over on my side.

repsac3 said...

Repsac3: With all due respect, as I've said before, you're not an original thinker, and frankly I don't think you're capable of analyzing an intellectual arugment.

I don't respect your intellect, either, so I guess we're even there... My ability to analyze an intellectual argument (to the extent that what you're offering in your writing IS an intellectual argument) is no longer for you to judge. Those to whom I show this thread will judge for themselves...

I've repeatedly shown on my blog that Obama's backed by radicals, and you try to wave a hand but offer no rebuttal other than to say "I don't believe you ... you're a wingnut."

My reply has actually been to show that you label anyone with whom you disagree as a radical... Whenever anyone tries to pin you down to a more precise definition of exactly what makes all these folks with whom you disagree into radicals, you retreat into some form of "Everyone knows..." or "It's obvious that..." The fact seems to be, you think that all Democrats except Lieberman are radicals... As long as you believe that act of voting Democrat makes one into a radical, there's little point in anything approaching rational discussion.

I just don't buy the paranoid tripe you're selling, and I'll continue to call you out on it, every chance I get.

And it's amazing too that all you can do is question my teaching credentials and authority, which of course is your opinion that I'm out there, while simulaneously you link to my RMP evaluations which are overwhelmingly positive: "Great professor" all around.

The deal is, I think discussions like the one here is a window into the kind of professor, and the kind of person you really are. I do see that many of your students have posted positive reviews... I hope that continues... But I also hope that every student thinking of taking political science does a search & finds the things you write on the internet before enrolling in one of your classes... I believe that both RMP & your blog should be required reading before getting involved with you professionally, or personally...

I don't so much question your teaching as your ability to reason, and your ability to relate to anyone who doesn't think just as you do... I really hope that you're a different man in the classroom than you are out here... ...but just the same (& just in case), I think that folks ought to read what you write & decide for themselves whether you're a good fit for them...

I do have to note that you're like a darned flunky on this site.

Note away, professor... It's not like anyone really cares...

That said, it ain't my site, so I'll gladly take a back seat whilest here... Your noting of it is noted...

I noticed too that you stopped visiting my page because my commenters slapped you down silly.

Never stopped visiting... Stopped commenting, as you're doing little more than repeating yourself... See no reason to run your little hamster wheel just because you choose to...

(I did a count the other day... Somethin' like 68 separate Obama posts, all saying pretty much the same petty things... I think you doth protest too much...)

If you ever post anything new & original, perhaps I'll have something to say about it...

Right now, the only argument even worth reading is between Tuggle and your own little radical thinker, Casebot. Anyone as willing as Rich to trash the Constitution in the name of security will always be a good read, even if such folks frequently turn out to be one of those separatists that live in shacks in the woods, as well... Compared to him, you're a piker.

Get a life, bro. Those "change" videos on your page are hopelessly utopian. "Imagine" that....

That's why we'll pass your kind by, just as we always have...

Americaneocon said...

"..."I don't so much question your teaching as your ability to reason, and your ability to relate to anyone who doesn't think just as you do... I really hope that you're a different man in the classroom than you are out here... ...but just the same (& just in case), I think that folks ought to read what you write & decide for themselves whether you're a good fit for them..."

Repsac3: Let me just clue you in here: I'm certainly not ashamed of any of my views, some of the best evidence of which is that I have nothing to hide.

You blog under a pseudonym, no? Or is "Repsac3" the name your parents gave you?

Why is that? Is it that something you say may affect whatever professional life you have? Or is it, frankly, that you're not so proud of what you have to put out there in terms of ideas, so why take the risk of looking lightweight?

My students are invited to read my blog, and the URL's on the syllabus. Lots of students comment and some cite my writing in their term paper assignments. Students routinely tell me I offer the most rigorous class they've had a LBCC.

But don't take it from me. Here's an e-mail a student sent to me a few years back, after she transferred to Berkeley in political science:

"I [was] just reflecting today on how your classes provided such an excellent foundation for the political science courses...taken so far. I'm actually in my second semester in Berkeley so I still have about a year and a half left until I graduate and go to law school...Academically I think Berkeley is overrated; they hardly require critical thinking or analysis and make us rely heavily on readings and honing the skill of regurgitating them. I wish the grading was more difficult and we weren't babied so much here but I guess the demographics of these students give them more of a sense of entitlement to an A grade than the students in Long Beach. I don't know if I'm making any sense but it's just my analysis of my experience, Berkeley is only difficult to me because it's this little bubble that is so detached from the real world; academically it's very easy if one works hard enough ... I hope your classes are going well; some of the best readings I've ever read for political science came from your course and the same authors always reappear, so I guess I'm saying you made a really good and relevant choice with the readings. The case studies were especially helpful and mirror what we are doing in one of my political science classes now."

Currently, we're having a big union/faculty debate on my campus over the proposed contract under discussion. Faculty members are flying off e-mails left and right, and I actually stopped debating because I made some others look bad (irrational) and a couple sunk to ad hominems. But don't take my word for it. Here's an excerpt from a colleague's e-mail she sent after I congratulated her on her eloquence, and after I recommended that she participate in campus debates more often:

"Thanks, Donald. Having read your well-reasoned emails in the past (and the immoderate responses they received!) was both an inspiration and cautionary tale for me. I dread getting venomous attacks, but I finally decided that to remain true to what I tell my students--that our voices matter and we should use them--I should just send out my thoughts regardless of what might come my way as a result. "

Also, as previously cited today above (with links), "A NEWT ONE" really got off on some of my posts this week:

Donald Douglas has two fantastic articles up where he takes this [sic] sycophant drones of ignorance behind the woodshed and leaves them there to wallow in pain and hate. The articles are entitled Antiwar Rush to Judgment on Alleged Pentagon Surrender Report and Distorted Antiwar Propaganda. Both pieces are must reads due to his keen flare to detail and pointing out the obvious to the oblivious - that would be to the anti-Americanist hacks."

I have many more e-mails from students and colleagues, and there are a few other bloggers on the web who've learned a lot from my work, and praised me for it.

I don't share all of this to toot my own horn, or puff myself up. I share it in the sense that it puts your own reflections - rants, even - in perspective.

You're whining here:

"My ability to analyze an intellectual argument (to the extent that what you're offering in your writing IS an intellectual argument) is no longer for you to judge. Those to whom I show this thread will judge for themselves..."

And why is that? Why is it for me no longer to judge? I've hurt your feelings? Poor boy!

And to whom might you be sharing this thread? Do you have a Daily Kos discussion group meet-up coming soon? Are you marching in the next Bush-bashing, Code Pink antiwar demonstration, sponsored by your local chapter of Intenational ANSWER? Oh, I'm sure they'll agree with you! Real smart cookies, those folks!

And how about this whopper:

"The fact seems to be, you think that all Democrats except Lieberman are radicals... As long as you believe that act of voting Democrat makes one into a radical, there's little point in anything approaching rational discussion."

Not true at all. There are many moderate Democrats who are good folk. Brian Baird, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Washington's 3rd district is a good man. In 2007, he came back from Iraq to tell his constituents that he'd personally seen the progress in Iraq and that a timetable for withdrawal was tantamount to surrender.

He attended a local town hall meeting to report his findings to his constituents and he had to have police protection and a personal bodyguard for fear of violent reprisal against his views.

Democrats like that, who might threaten him for his position on Iraq, and who want to surrender the country to the terrorists, are radical. I've defined the term precisely, and provided corroboration for YOU that today's progressives explicity adopted the term "progressive" to mask the far left-wing revolutionary socialist agenda:

"The term 'progressive' has evolved a great deal over the past 35 years. By the ’70s, many ’60s veterans had concluded that working 'within the system' had become a viable option. As a result, many leftists stopped using rhetoric and slogans that had marginalized them from the political mainstream. Labels like 'radical', 'leftist', and 'revolutionary' sounded stale and gratuitously provocative. And so, gradually, activists began to use the much less threatening 'progressive.' Today, 'progressive' is the term of choice for practically everyone who has a politics that used to be called 'radical.'"

That is a non-controvrsial position, and the medial are just now getting on the ball, focusing on Obama's radical ties to domestic terrorists, which well short of "six-degrees" of separation. Ayres held campaign fundraisers at the Obamas home! These are not people "from the neighborhood." Obama was just recently on the board of Woods Foundation with Ayres, another point he tries to spin off as insignificant.

But as Taylor Marsh said on the Huffington Post:

"So no one should be surprised that Obama had a a nightmare night. He finally got real questions for which he should have had ready answers. Over the last year Barack Obama has gotten a complete pass on his record, his life and everything associated to his political rise....


The facts are that the progressive community and Obama supporters have done their candidate no favors by the kid glove treatment they've applied to all things having to do with him and his record, including his associations. What happened last night is a result of one year of people ignoring reality. That's right, reality. Because the closer Obama got to the nomination and the general election, the curtain would eventually be pulled back on every event in his life, good, bad and horror show, which includes Rev. Wright."

Frankly, this is coming from a "progressive," is not much more than I've said here in rebutting Dr. Biowordsmith's post.

But I predict you'll have no rebuttal to my points, or anything I've quotted. Why?

You've close your own mind to these argument for two reasons, at least: 1) You're in line with these radicals in your views, but you're ashamed to be associated with such outwardly declared revolutionaries, adn 2) you're analytically incapable of rebutting my points other than repeating arguments from other discussion threads (like Biowordsmith's) or simply throwing your hands up all pouty to blow me off as a "wingnut" who's unqualified to teach college.

I could go on, but there's no need. I stand by my orignal assessment. You're not an original thinker, no offense, just an observation, and as I don't see you've got any outside analysis from colleagues or bloggers who support you, I'd say your claims have been trumped.

But one more thing: You acually counted my Obaama posts? Interesting admission, which does give some explanation to your apparent obssessive-complusive deviations, clearly on display here with your own irrational ellipticism, of which you share with Dr. Biowordsmith.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Wow Donald, you’ve really sunk to a new low in embarrassment with that one, huh. But as you’re surely aware, there is NO definition that is as you described. You included synonyms and you know it. For shame. And you dare call me dishonest.

Secondly, I attacked you for not knowing what semantics meant because you were accusing me of playing semantics games, yet we weren’t having a semantics debate. Later on, you started playing games with the word “obvious” and we started having a semantics debate. Is that really too hard for you to understand? Again, perhaps I should have used my psychic abilities to know that you’d start playing semantics games, but I didn’t.

And I’m glad to see that you’ve finally conceded that “obvious” doesn’t mean “universally recognized.” How big of you to finally admit that you invented that. Now can you finally admit that your repeated use of “manifest” and “self-evident” was part of your invention too? There’s a reason they put those in the synonym section.

And remember, I’ve already explained how my usage of the word fits into the only definition of the word that you’ll accept. As I explained, it is easily understood that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor. But all the same, words have more than one meaning. What makes you the judge of which definition I can use?

And what exactly is your problem with Hyperdictionary.com? Are you insane? It’s a collection of dictionaries, just like Dictionary.com is. And it included the same definition you had. And the definition I used came from Princeton’s online dictionary. I’ve explained this before. And yet you changed the name to something silly and imagine you’ve done the cleverest thing in the world. Right.

And again, that’s “easily perceived OR grasped by the mind” See the “OR” there? That means that it can be EITHER of those things. And opinions CAN be easily grasped by the mind…at least by a functioning mind, anyway. I obviously can’t speak for yours, however. Especially as you’ve clearly stated that your opinions were obvious, so you obviously think the word means the same thing I do. All this debate from your part is just noise, in a futile attempt to get me to adopt the same lame position you had during our last debate.

And as I’ve said repeatedly, my use of the word “obvious” cannot make a statement of opinion into a statement of fact. Even if I wrote, “It’s a fact that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor,” it’d STILL be an opinion. OPINIONS CANNOT BE FACTS!!!! What is so difficult about this? I COULD NOT HAVE MADE AN EMPIRCAL STATEMENT BECAUSE MY STATEMENT WASN’T PROVABLE!!! And look, you’re making the same point. You insist that I can’t prove my statement and I’ve insisted repeatedly that I can’t. Because it was an opinion! That’s what opinions are! And so you’re insisting that my use of ONE WORD forces me into a position that I can’t possibly be in. ONE WORD that doesn’t mean what you say it does. And that’s it. That’s your whole debate. How sad.

Again, at best, your only argument is that I shouldn’t have used that word. And that’s insane. All this debate, all because you think I used ONE WORD I shouldn’t have used that wasn’t even important to my point. The point of this post was to defend Wright; not Obama. Because I finally saw the clips people were denouncing him for and they weren’t bad at all. I know you don’t agree with that assessment, but that’s an opinion thing. But again, the ONE WORD you keep attacking wasn’t even important to anything I wrote. I could delete that one sentence and the post would be the same (not that I’d ever delete anything I wrote).

And no, I’ve never stopped remembering that the position you imagine I’m in is the same one you were in during our N=1 debate. It’s obvious that I won that debate, and this is your only hope for revenge. But it won’t work. Opinions can obviously be obvious, and my statement was obviously an opinion. Sorry, but you lose again. I’m saying the same things I’ve always said, and any “post-modernism” you see is entirely in your own mind.

And so is non-response the equivalent of conceding? Under what rule of debate is that? These comments are already SUPER long and I can’t possibly respond to everything everytime. Besides, by your logic, you’ve already conceded EVERY POINT besides this one little point on semantics. Does that mean I’ve won everything else in this debate? Sorry, but debates aren’t ping-pong. Just because I don’t hit back doesn’t mean you’ve won. And I’m always free to go back and start defending a position again, if I think I need to. Silence is not a concession, or you’ll have to admit that John beat you DAYS ago.

And why do you continue to use Lanny Davis as an authority? His words mean nothing to me. I don’t even know who he is, besides being a Clinton supporter who dislikes Obama. But you’re just a typical authoritarian: You keep imagining that other people’s arguments have influence on me, and keep trying to use them as if they defeat my point. But that’s just not how this works. I don’t care if Jesus Christ himself told me I was wrong, I’d still disagree. I have no use for authority figures.

And I NEVER said you were unqualified to be a professor. I NEVER said you didn’t have the intelligence to be a professor. And I NEVER said you appealed to PhD credentials as a form of authority. Perhaps that’s your conscience speaking, I don’t know. But I never said any of those things. I said that it didn’t take intelligence to be a college professor or PhD; but never suggested you weren’t qualified to be one…or an associate professor, as the case may be. I said the main qualification to getting a PhD or becoming a professor was being tenacious; which is a quality you definitely have. That’s all I said. Everything else was in your mind.

Oh, and when I told Repsac that guys like you gain credentials to bolster their arguments, that wasn’t to imply I thought you were appealing to your authority in this discussion (though you sort of did so at the end of your last comment). I just meant you were doing that overall in life; that you wanted credentials to feel better about yourself by making yourself into an authority figure. Again, I don’t know why you got so offended by what I wrote, but I suspect it’s because you actually think I’m right and that hurts more than any insult. Truth always hurts more than lies. That’s why your “polecat” and “nihilist” stuff is so laughable, because they don’t even make sense. Perhaps if you ever got outside of your own shell long enough to understand who I am, you’ll find some insult that could actually hurt me. But calling me a post-modern radical is just dumb, because I’m not either.

As for your analogical insults, you really needn’t bother. I totally understand what you’re doing and it’s lame. Who cares if you have your little rationalizations for them? I know what you’re doing. You know what you’re doing. You’re not even fooling yourself. You’re just playing a childish little game that makes you feel clever, but you’re not fooling anyone.

And why do you bother? I’ve asked that before, but don’t think you told me. Do you think saying I’m “like” a polecat will convince me that I’m wrong? Is it supposed to hurt my feelings? All it does is make me think you’re an idiot, as it’s one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in a debate. It’s almost as bad as the “Biowordsmith” thing, which doesn’t make any sense at all and doesn’t even sound good. What’s that all about? Why do you garbage up our debate with this noise? If it’s supposed to fluster me, trust me, it’s not. It just gives me a little laugh each time, so if that’s what you’re going for: Mission Accomplished. I’m laughing at you.

repsac3 said...

Why is that? Is it that something you say may affect whatever professional life you have? Or is it, frankly, that you're not so proud of what you have to put out there in terms of ideas, so why take the risk of looking lightweight?

What a silly bit of fluff... I bet "vegas art guy" & "Law & Order Teacher" would be quite proud that your questioning the comittment of anyone who doesn't blog under their real name... The fact is many folks don't, for many different reasons... Your suggestion that anyone who makes a different choice on that than the great Donald Douglas is afraid to be seen with their ideas is just more silliness...

And I really don't need testimonials from former students & fellow wingnuts. I don't care. All I'm saying is that I think anyone who plans on spending much time with you, personally or professionally, ought to read your words and decide for themselves about the kind of man you are. Since you're so proud of everything you say & do, I'd think you'd agree that that's a good plan.

I don't share all of this to toot my own horn, or puff myself up. I share it in the sense that it puts your own reflections - rants, even - in perspective.

Believe as you will, professor... I believe that much of what you post is about your own ego...

But yeah, there are folks who agree with you, and thus love your writing... More power to 'em, and bully for you. That doesn't negate the fact that there are others who see you differently than the particular mirrors you choose to look at and cite.

And why is that? Why is it for me no longer to judge? I've hurt your feelings? Poor boy!

It has nothing to do with anyone's feelings... I simply no longer trust your judgement. I think you've shown yourself to be an ideologically based intellectual lightweight by the arguments you've presented here & elsewhere... I neither trust you or respect your intellect enough to care what you think, so you have no ability to "hurt my poor feelings"...

And to whom might you be sharing this thread? Do you have a Daily Kos discussion group meet-up coming soon? Are you marching in the next Bush-bashing, Code Pink antiwar demonstration, sponsored by your local chapter of Intenational ANSWER? Oh, I'm sure they'll agree with you! Real smart cookies, those folks!

You obviously have nothing to worry about, do you?Besides, you're proud to be associated with your blather. Whoever I share it with, I'm doing you a favor, right?

Not true at all. There are many moderate Democrats who are good folk.

And now you've named two...

But anyone who writes on KOS, anyone who attends an antiwar protest, anyone who disagrees with you--- all radicals.

But I predict you'll have no rebuttal to my points, or anything I've quotted. Why?

Mainly because I see the people from whom such points are coming; wingnuts who'd never vote for a Democrat in the first place, and diehard, take no prisoners Hillary supporters who are unwilling to see anyone but her get the nomination. I don't trust either group, and so far, polls are bearing out the fact that such rubbish isn't worth the electrons with which most of it is printed... Guilt by association & whispered innuendo are not a big sellers this year...

Second, this isn't the place to discuss anything Donald Douglas wishes to discuss. I have responded to such points on your blog and mine... (Earlier... I've not bothered with Marsh, as it's just more of the same "Douglas vs Obama hamster wheel" ...) Here, it's all about the "real" meaning of the word obvious.
Obviously.

and as I don't see you've got any outside analysis from colleagues or bloggers who support youed.

Yeah, I'd say that most of us don't need such affirmation as you choose to collect & regurgitate at will. I'll let my words stand on their own...

You acually counted my Obaama posts? Interesting admission, which does give some explanation to your apparent obssessive-complusive deviations, clearly on display here with your own irrational ellipticism,

Funny you mention obsession... That, and a little "I think he doth protest too much" is just what the blog post was going to be about, before realizing how utterly worthless you are, in the grand scheme of things...

Americaneocon said...

Of course I included synonyms, which is defined by the same dictionary to which I linked originally as:

"...a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language.."

I've said this all along, and that's all you can do, is protest:

"...you’ve really sunk to a new low in embarrassment with that one, huh. But as you’re surely aware, there is NO definition that is as you described. You included synonyms and you know it. For shame. And you dare call me
dishonest."

Look at that definition again: "...a word having the same" meaning.

Look it up: Dictionary.com.

The only dishonesty I see over here is yours.

All of these attacks on me as having sunk to a new low just continues your long pattern of prevarications, evasions, and procrastinations, ad nauseum.

And now this:

"Secondly, I attacked you for not knowing what semantics meant because you were accusing me of playing semantics games, yet we weren’t having a semantics debate. Later on, you started playing games with the word “obvious” and we started having a semantics debate. Is that really too hard for you to understand? Again, perhaps I should have used my psychic abilities to know that you’d start playing semantics games, but I didn’t."

I think you've lost your mind!

I first used the term semantics to point out YOUR word games. After that point, then, we were having a debate on "semantics," so your protests are a ruse to continue this tired debate, frankly, because you've got nothing else.

I've haven't conceded anything, in any case, that obvious does not mean "universally recognized.” All I said is, "fine, take off univeral as matter of bookkeeping." The definition remains the same, because it includes "evident":

"...easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge; evident..."

It's logically impossible to limit what's "evident" to some sub-category of perceptants in your demand, since something that is "easily seen" should be so to anyone who percieves it, hence its universality.

So, you're wrong again, as you've been the whole time. Besides, this is all just more red herrings to get away from my point all along: You say that what Obama knows is "obvious" in the form of the empirical context to the post you've provided. Your entry is designed to indict those who criticise Obama, which is why you confer to Carpetbagger for support. To paraphrase, here's your argument:

You see, it's not just me ... everyone else should agree with me, because it's "obvious" that Obama doesn't agree with these things."

So, you've cited another blogger as a referent to make your case, so it's not just a matter of your opinion. You're stating that critics are wrong.

Hence, I'm demanding how you can know it's obvious.

You're trying, as usual to turn the tables on who used "semantics" first (which is a dishonest ploy if there ever was one) and to now allege bad faith, when I've shown that I've used all definitions consistently and from the same sources. A synonym in fact refers to "the same" meaning, so there's nothing to call out here.

The problem, which all can see who visit here, is your continued demands at postmodern parsing so that you can change reality and hence be able to avoid responsibility for your own hackneyed arugments.

That's dishonest, and I'm calling you on it.

Then you go here:

"And what exactly is your problem with Hyperdictionary.com?"

I've given you, as an alternative to the online version, two different authoritative hard-copy Webster's definitions, including one that's copyrighted as citing "previous" editions going back to 1914:

"Obvious: Easily discovered, seen, or understood; plain; evident. SYN.: manifest."

And thus, "manifest" being "the same" as "evident," means that something that's obvious is indeed universally recognized.

If you have an old Webster's look it up and you'll see. But no matter what you do, even if you want to use the least acceptable definition as "grasped by the mind," my case is solid.

Even if you protest that it's "easily understood that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor," we'd need some measurement of the data point that you posit as understandable.

So, I repeat my demand, one more time, what evidence do you have that it's "easily understandable," which is to say, manifest, what Obama's views are.

Lanny Davis comes in becuase he's used "clear" in precisely the same way you've used "obvious," as something that's evident or manifest. But he comes to the right prescription: To jettison Obama's relationship to his hate preacher. While you simply want to hang on desperately to a hateful radicalism, which is understandable in terms of the postmodern nihilism that drives your ideological project.

But look at you here:

"And as I’ve said repeatedly, my use of the word “obvious” cannot make a statement of opinion into a statement of fact. Even if I wrote, “It’s a fact that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor,” it’d STILL be an opinion."

This is something you just can't grasp for the life of you. By saying what Obama's beliefs are as factual, you've created a hypothesis that opens up your statement to verifiability. If you can't verify that Obama indeed doesn't agree with Wright, then you should retract it.

The points as clear as a bell, again, because your appeal to Carpetbagger shows you've made a point of argument for widespread acceptance, not some throwaway off the cuff remark. If you did, you woudn't invest so much time hopelessly trying to debunk my case, and my intellectual credibility.

You only object to my note of your silence on key points after I've made the point multiple times, and then you still omit the main point of contention: You can't account for the decisive attack on your multi-culti postmodern project other than to say "Just because I don’t hit back doesn’t mean you’ve won."

That's one more dodge, and in so doing, you've avoided the main thrust altogether. Note, to repeat my point from earlier:

"... you're as well a lousy multi-culti postmodernist, and you've yet to address the issue, which as far as I can tell, you're intellectually incapable of handling, no offense, although you've "clearly" - used here like Lanny Davis - just proved your own erroneousnesss..."

You've got nothing but totally irrelevant parsing of points that aren't even at issue!

So, remember Dr. Sanity's point:

"For the postmodernist, by contrast, interpretation and investigation never terminate with reality. Language connects only with more language, never with a non-linguistic reality....

For the postmodernist, language cannot be cognitive because it does not connect to reality, whether to an external nature or an underlying self. Language is not about being aware of the world, or about distinguishing the true from the false, or even about argument in the traditional sense of validity, soundness, and probability."

Why don't you address this, instead of deploying canards, which is a new level of your slippery, polecat-like style of mindless but never ending evasions?!!

As I've said, many times, all you've got are endless ellipticisms about "opinion versus fact," where you claim "obvious" doesn't really mean "manifest," which is supposed to be substantiated by lame-brained style citations of dunderheaded "hypo-dictionaries. When does it end?! There's no reality here, as long as you can continue your black liberationist hate-backing, Dr. Biowordsmith!!

And now what about this long side-track (and combined elliptical slur-continuation):

"Oh, and when I told Repsac that guys like you gain credentials to bolster their arguments, that wasn’t to imply I thought you were appealing to your authority in this discussion (though you sort of did so at the end of your last comment). I just meant you were doing that overall in life; that you wanted credentials to feel better about yourself by making yourself into an authority figure. Again, I don’t know why you got so offended by what I wrote, but I suspect it’s because you actually think I’m right and that hurts more than any insult. Truth always hurts more than lies...

As for your analogical insults, you really needn’t bother. I totally understand what you’re doing and it’s lame. Who cares if you have your little rationalizations for them?"

So, on the one hand you deny that a side-discussion in the same comment thread indicating that I was unqualified to be a profressor doesn't count as a slur, AND now you add that my objective quotations from others in response to your character attacks against me provides post hoc evidence for what you allege your trying to say all along!!

God that's really bad.

I never said a word about my credentials, because that's a logical flaw. But now, it's not improper to bring in outside statements, with links provided, to indicate that your claims of some type of widely acceptable slurs on my teaching and reasoning abilities are not only fasle, but beyond the pale. Indeed, linking to other blog posts which cite my work puts your endless claims to superior argument in perspective. That's totally appropriate citation methodology since you've aleady appealed to an unfounded level of acceptance for my views.

I'm frying you here, Dr. Biowordsmith. Every comeback I've offfered has made you desperately more evasive. All you can do is protest and evade - and whine - ignoring logical arguments showing proofs of your anti-rationalist project, and then you moan some more saying, "Is it supposed to hurt my feelings?"

You sound like you're on a playground. This isn't about protecting your feelings. You've backing anti-Americanism in your post here. I've called you on it, and all you can do is make allegations and deploy more red herrings to get out from the fact that all along I've had you pinned down, and you're evading endlessly LIKE a noxious polecat rolling in his own excrement.

Again, that's a logical comparison, not a personal attack. As I noted before, "slimy polecat" is in wide use. Did you do the Google search like I suggested. It shows how bad off you are in trying to get out from superior arumentation.

But you call it "little rationalizations"!! Get this boy some Kleenex!! Hooahh!!!

Americaneocon said...

"...And I really don't need testimonials from former students & fellow wingnuts. I don't care..."

That's really enough right there, Repsac3.

My students are not these "wingnuts" you're always railing against, and since their comments make you look completely isolated in your nihilist fantasies, It's easy to see why you wouldn't care: Evaluations outside of your narrow view, that put a clear perspective on your anti-intellecutalism, must make you sick.

Throw your hands up, sure, that makes sense - it's a classic denial mechanism.

Remember, you've been to my RMP page. I have good evaluations by students who've learned in my classes, but to you those are just data points, not real people, because to accept them puts the lie that I'm "unqualified" to teach college.

As if you really had the integrity to judge such?!!

And what was that about Taylor Marsh?

"Ive not bothered with Marsh, as it's just more of the same 'Douglas vs Obama hamster wheel.'"

A classic dodge if there was one.

I've never heard of Marsh until last week, and I like her, because she's trying to snap people like yourself out of their mindless denail, ignorance, and paranoia.

This is how you characterized people who disagree with you:

"Mainly because I see the people from whom such points are coming; wingnuts who'd never vote for a Democrat in the first place, and diehard, take no prisoners Hillary supporters who are unwilling to see anyone but her get the nomination."

In other words, anyone, from any perspective that take a position different from yours! That's totally unprincipled, if you hadn't noticed.

Plus, your point on appealing to public opinion's a flawed argument, logically. Hey, a majority supported slavery, and now you'll tell me that was okay too? Not good, Reppy, boy.

Besides, polls have seen Obama dropping in Pennsylvania since this week's debate, so if you're going to refer, illogically as it may be, to polling, at least get the trends right. LOL!!

The fact is, Reppy, is that no amount of evidence - superior argumentation, data analysis, objective testimonials from outside observers, at RMP or in non-partisan statements - can shake you from your own EGOTISTICAL delusions that, voila, you're right no matter what.

But I'll quote an expert on this:

"There are a wide variety of ways that psychological denial can be expressed by a person who is unconsciously defending or protecting themselves from unwanted knowledge, thoughts, or feelings."

-- Dr. Sanity, "STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH DENIAL"

repsac3 said...

"...And I really don't need testimonials from former students & fellow wingnuts. I don't care..."

My students are not these "wingnuts" you're always railing against,


No, they're not... That's why I used the word "and" (or "&") to separate the former students from the fellow wingnuts. It's simple english, Professor. You're attempt to suggest I was conflating them into one group is transparent.

Remember, you've been to my RMP page. I have good evaluations by students who've learned in my classes,

I believe I've acknowledged that... (I said I do see that many of your students have posted positive reviews... I hope that continues... But I also hope that every student thinking of taking political science does a search & finds the things you write on the internet before enrolling in one of your classes... I believe that both RMP & your blog should be required reading before getting involved with you professionally, or personally...

but to you those are just data points, not real people, because to accept them puts the lie that I'm "unqualified" to teach college.

If you believe that I ever said you were unqualified to teach college, I urge you to quote me saying so, because I don't believe I ever said any such thing. I did question your ability to reason, however. I still do.

I've never heard of Marsh until last week,

In saying that she was just more of the same Douglas v Obama hamster wheel, I didn't say you had... I said that she (and your echoing of her) is all a part of the same old story that you've been tirelessly pushing... The're nothing new in it, except that you & she are on the same page, albeit for different reasons...

In other words, anyone, from any perspective that take a position different from yours! That's totally unprincipled, if you hadn't noticed.

Not at all, Donnie... But I do look at from whence the criticism comes, and when I see that there is likely some ulterior motive, I do take that into account. Both you and yours, and Taylor and those who agree with her, have a vested interest in knocking Obama down. While accusations from both sources should be looked at, one should never forget why either your contingent or hers is offering them... ...and it seems that so far, the judgement of the general public has not gone in either of your favors, as regards Obama... Maybe that'll change, and maybe it won't, but it does seem to be the story thus far...

Plus, your point on appealing to public opinion's a flawed argument, logically. Hey, a majority supported slavery, and now you'll tell me that was okay too?

While it is a logically flawed argument, it's also the basis of elections... The public does not vote based on logic...

I'm not appealing to the public as proof that you're wrong, but only as proof that right or wrong, the public isn't accepting the narrative you're selling. As with so much of what goes on here, it's about opinion rather than fact (or logic), and the public doesn't share your opinion on this matter.

As far as slavery, public opinion was wrong for quite some time, in my opinion.

Your analogy between slavery and RevWright/Obama would only make sense if I was actually claiming you are wrong because the public does not agree with you. I am not claiming any such thing. I am simply noting that your version isn't selling, and should that continue, you will not be successful in taking Obama out. Maybe the rest of us are assholes, and you are indeed correct. But I suspect that'll be cold comfort should a whole bunch of us "assholes" vote Obama in, come November...

Besides, polls have seen Obama dropping in Pennsylvania since this week's debate, so if you're going to refer, illogically as it may be, to polling, at least get the trends right. LOL!!

Yeah, there has been a slight drop in PA... We'll see how it goes...

The fact is, Reppy, is that no amount of evidence - superior argumentation, data analysis, objective testimonials from outside observers, at RMP or in non-partisan statements - can shake you from your own EGOTISTICAL delusions that, voila, you're right no matter what.

You'll have to be more specific, Donnie...

Right about what, exactly?

(Dig that egotistical--no, I mean EGOTISTICAL-- mirror image... Once again, someone says something about you, and you reflect the charge right back... Classic.)

But I'll quote an expert on this:

-- Dr. Sanity, "STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH DENIAL"


I'm sorry, Donnie, but anyone who supposes she can diagnose much of anything over the internet & sight unseen is generally regarded as something more akin to a crackpot than an expert. She may be very proficient in her actual practice, but the work emanating from her partisan online "practice" doesn't carry much weight with people in the real world.

(It'd be great if we could all stop with the silly "BioWordsmith" Reppie" "Donnie" "Fouglas" silliness, but I'm sure we can keep it up at least as long as you can, should you not wish to stop...)

repsac3 said...

Funniness:

American Power: The Decline of Rational Disagreement in America?

Check the chart, and evaluate the posts here, accordingly.

repsac3 said...

I've got some time... Let's employ the Douglas (via Dr. Sanity: HEIRARCHY OF DISAGREEMENT, via CreateDebate.com, via Paul Graham's March 2008 article How to Disagree) model to the first reply that takes issue with Bio's original post.

Three comments from the top, Donald Douglas says the following in reply to the original post:

You say:

"It's obvious Obama doesn't believe these things."

Why is it obvious? Do you have evidence that Obama doesn't believe these things?

In fact, at his San Antonio speech he said Americans couldn't be proud of their country. I have it on YouTube. I don't have evidence that he thinks America deserved 9/11, but Obama said last week in his Philadelphia speech that he was in church when Wright said controversial statements. He could have been there when Wright said precisely such things.

This demands repudiation.

But what he would not do is "disown" Wright, but that's exactly what he needs to do. It's not "guilt by association," it's a question of judgment. One is frequently measured by the company they keep, and is this case Wright reflects very, very badly on Obama.

But you defend him. You haven't changed, Biobrain. You've no intellectual standards whatsever. I think that's pathetic, but that's just my opinion.

Now, who was that who's a nutjob?


OK, let's explore the reply a bit more closely...

You say:

"It's obvious Obama doesn't believe these things."

Why is it obvious? Do you have evidence that Obama doesn't believe these things?


Here, Donald quotes one part of one line in Bio's essay, seemingly mistakes Bio's opinion that it's obvious (to him) that Obama doesn't believe these things for a statement of fact which can be proven or disproven, and treats it as though this one sentence fragment in which Bio offers his opinion was the thesis of Bio's whole essay.

Refutation? Maybe... But, as it fails to address a central point, and also misstates the author's meaning & intent, it isn't very strong, in my opinion.

In fact, at his San Antonio speech he said Americans couldn't be proud of their country. I have it on YouTube.

As a factual matter, what Donald asserts here is untrue. Obama did not say Americans couldn't be proud of their country, but that Americans asked their nationality when in foreign lands "should always be able to hold [their heads] high with pride in [their] voice when [answering], “I am an American." Any suggestion that Obama said Americans aren't, couldn't be or shouldn't be proud of their country resides in Donald's peculiar understanding of Obama's actual words, rather than in the words themselves...

While it's an attempt to provide evidence contrary to what Donald seems to believe is the theme of Bio's essay, it falls flat in execution. Donald misunderstands what Obama actually said, and substitutes his approximation of what Obama "really meant" for Obama's actual words...


I don't have evidence that he thinks America deserved 9/11, but Obama said last week in his Philadelphia speech that he was in church when Wright said controversial statements. He could have been there when Wright said precisely such things.

As this argument comes down to a supposition that Obama may have heard something controversial while in church, and that maybe one of those things had something to do with 9/11 (which isn't in dispute, either here or elsewhere, as far as I know) I can't even call this refutation, though I suspect that Donald thought it was when he wrote it.

This demands repudiation.

This is not really an argument against what Bio said at all, but simple contradiction. And, it's an opinion, taboot, as is much of what follows.

But what he would not do is "disown" Wright, but that's exactly what he needs to do. It's not "guilt by association," it's a question of judgment. One is frequently measured by the company they keep, and is this case Wright reflects very, very badly on Obama.

Contradiction of Bio's opinion by stating Donald's opinion.

And then, as though Donald's opinion somehow became fact, Donald slides further down the pyramid to the Ad Hom & namecalling portions of his reply.

First, the Ad Hom:

But you defend him. You haven't changed, Biobrain.

"Because my opinion is so obviously right and yours is so obviously wrong, I berate you."

You've no intellectual standards whatsever. I think that's pathetic, but that's just my opinion.

No, that'd be namecalling, and like the ad hom above it, has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand, such as it is...

Now, who was that who's a nutjob?

We think it was you, though you appear to think it was Bio... (Yeah, more namecalling...)

Americaneocon said...

I have to give it to you, Reppy, you do try. LOL!!

Do your 'rents call you "Reppy," by the way?

Donnie's cool though!

I makes me feel young, Reppy! I appreciate the compliment, but you don't want to build my ego, remember?!!

ROFLMFAO!!

repsac3 said...

A brilliant reply there, Donnie...

You really touched on the issues we've been discussing...

nutjob.

Doctor Like A Polecat said...

Donald, you slimy polecat, this debate has driven you insane. Sorry, but synonyms are NOT the same as definitions; or else they would be included in the definition. And you know that. And once again, please learn the meaning of the word “or”. And no, it doesn’t mean you get to pick whichever definition you want and make me fit into it. It means that BOTH meanings are accurate.

Secondly, you’ve got this all backwards. Your point is that opinions can NEVER be obvious. So it’s not enough for you to find ONE definition which says that factual things are obvious, though you haven’t done that. You have to show that opinions can NEVER be obvious. One definition isn’t enough, and you don’t even have that. So you resort to synonyms, which even you know aren’t part of the definition. And since you know that’s not good enough, you then take ONE PART of ONE DEFINITION to somehow show that opinions can NEVER be obvious. But again, all I have to do is find ONE definition that explains my usage, and I’ve clearly done that repeatedly; whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

As far as our debate on semantics, you’re absolutely right, you DID accuse me of playing semantics games. But the thing is, we weren’t having a debate on semantics at the time. That’s why I kept asking you to explain why you were saying that, but you wouldn’t do it. You even accused me of playing semantics with Michelle Obama’s statements, though I hadn’t even mentioned her.

But just because you accused me playing games with semantics didn’t mean that we were having a semantics debate, because you refused to explain what semantics debate we were having. How can we have a semantics debate if one of us doesn’t even know what word we’re debating? It wasn’t until you redefined the word “obvious” that we started having a debate on semantics; and I acknowledged it immediately afterwards and stopped saying that we weren’t having a semantics debate. Before that, it was just your unexplained accusations.

Here’s where our semantics debate started:
"Obvious" is an adjective that describes something that's easily or readily seen. Something that's obvious in universally recognized, that is, manifest.

And that was you. You started playing games with the word, and included synonyms and your own inventions as a desperate bid to prove any kind of point. And what was that point? That I used ONE WORD incorrectly. You must be so proud of yourself.

As for “universality” you’re utterly nuts! There’s a reason why your friend Daniel Webster didn’t include that in his dictionary. What’s the point of using dictionaries if we can just tease-out any definition we want? You invented that, and had to spend quite a bit of time trying to justify it. Why? Because no dictionary used that definition.

And will you EVER explain why you used the word on your blog to describe your opinion? Here’s one of those quotes yet again:
“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.”

Are you honestly suggesting that this opinion of yours is universally recognized? Will you really say this is a fact, rather than opinion? Really? Or will you just deem this citation inadmissible for reasons you can’t explain? I mean, this statement of yours was not only an opinion; it was a prediction. Can predictions be factual? I doubt it. So instead, you’ll accuse me, yet again, of acting like a slimy polecat, who are famous for using red herrings and obfuscations during debates. But the reality is that you use the word, just as I did.

And it looks like you STILL don’t know what an opinion is. My statement could NOT have been empirical, or factual, or anything other than an opinion. It’s impossible, because it could only have been an opinion. Saying that an opinion can be empirical is like saying that a square can be round. And it wasn’t an opinion because I claim it was an opinion, but because it was an opinion. Please learn this point.

And how can I “protest” your absurd points on post-modernists? I’m NOT a post-modernist and I’ve told you that repeatedly. Your point on this is entirely absurd. There is NOTHING that I’ve written that you can point to and say I’m a post-modernist. Yet again, it’s just empty name-calling that you can never defend.

And once again, I NEVER SAID YOU WEREN’T QUALIFIED TO BE A PROFESSOR!!! I SAID THAT BECOMING A PROFESSOR DIDN’T REQUIRE INTELLIGENCE!!! And I’ve been saying that for YEARS before I ever had the misfortune to debate you. My god man, how did you ever get through college with your obvious reading comprehension problems? As I suggested last time, this looks like a pretty touchy subject for you, as you’re reading insults that weren’t even implied. Looks like poor Donald’s inferiority complex wasn’t cured by his professorship…or associate professorship, as the case may be.

And I’m sorry, but “outside references” to your credentials are entirely irrelevant to anything here. I don’t care if God himself said you were a decent guy, I’d still think you were a nutjob, and every comment you write just confirms this point. I mean, the fact that you’re so vigorously attacking me for using ONE WORD incorrectly is all the evidence I need of your insanity. But I completely ignored your outside references. Do you really think they’d impress me? Wait, don’t say it. I know that you did. Poor, poor Donald.

But if you want, you can drop this entire part of the debate, as it was never meant to mean anything and is just a distraction. As a reminder, I didn’t include this in our debate; you did. I was just talking about you to somebody else; not raising debate points or trying to undermine your credibility. Trust me, Fouglas, you lost that YEARS AGO!

And is it really your idea that saying that I’m “like” a polecat is superior argumentation? Really?? I’m now convinced that you’re either a madman or just a really bored person playing an elaborate joke, and I can’t decide which is worse. But keep on replying; lest you implicitly concede every argument we’ve ever had. What a joke. I don’t know what’s worse: That you’ve invented your own rules of debate, or that you can’t even win with those.

But please say I’m “like” a polecat a few hundred more times. It’s really working for you, Professor Fouglas.

Fade said...

All the wordy wordgames aside- It's obvious that if Obama did believe these things, it wouldn't matter. America is for the free.

The ONLY truly "Unamerican" ideal expressed here is the one that American neocon keeps expressing- that Obama is somehow less of an American than him because of his beliefs.

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biowordsmith:

You're getting ahead of yourself with the self-congratulations.

You'll use whatever definitions you want, hence your nickname, "Biowordsmith."

My whole experience with you is that you'll argue whatever points work for you at the moment, totally without principle.

Here, for example, your protest that I pick apart the meaning of "obvious," and that's "all I've got," which is false, as I've shown that you use circular reasoning, deny objective facts from a postmodernist perspective, and deploy ad hominem attacks with third person references, then declaim them through plausible deniability.

But let me show how truly hypocritical you are.

Here's you from last summer, at "Why Bush Invented Terrorism and the Ideology of Hate":

" The arguments you make here are moot ... Besides, most of your points here involve extreme parsing of sentences to make any case at all."

This is you protesting my analysis of N=1's debating techniques, but now when I hold you to a precise definition of "obvious," you protest.

This is what's intellectually dishonest. You'll do whatever you can to avoid being stuck, dead in the water. Last summer, if I sought to dissect word meanings, you said at the time, " That’s fairly embarrassing."

So, are you "fairly embarrassed" to now do whatever you can to get out of any recognition of the most authoritative definitions of "obvious?"

You're protesting that I'm questioning your use of "obvious," when just last summer you declared rules of debate exlcuding extreme parsing.

You get that?

Sure, it makes total sense: You're utterly without integrity in debate.

Now you're protesting that Webster's is not a legitimate dictionary? Man that's bad!

And what's funny is now you're all desperate to proclaim that you "won" the debate last summer, in this current Wright thread:

"And no, I’ve never stopped remembering that the position you imagine I’m in is the same one you were in during our N=1 debate. It’s obvious that I won that debate, and this is your only hope for revenge."

This is really funny, because I never claimed victory. That debate was put on hold, since once I realized that you would never apply your own rules of debate to YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS, I knew you were a complete fraud.

Recall what I said from last summer, in response to Reppy's interjection:

"I actually think Bio Brain made a pretty good argument, although it was more useful for my case to have him defend his statement on how judges decide."

And now you claim you won the debate? That's just plain underhanded. QED.

You should at least quote the thread to reveal that not only did I continue the debate, but that I had you cornered on your own hypocrisy back then.

Let's refresh: You claimed that Bush's statement that he cared about the troops - an "opinion" you argued - couldn't be used to validate the assertion that he was concerned about the welfare of U.S. forces. But then you turned around and said, arguing from a legal perspective, that a witness' testimony in court could be used to render a verdict in a trial.

Since a conviction has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you argue yourself that an opinion can be admitted as fact - as in "facts in evidence."

Which way's it going to be, Dr. Biowordsmith? That's why you're dishonest: You'll do whatever you can - as just as desperately as a slinking, cornered polecat - to get out from abiding by your own rules of debate!!

Thus, of course you didn't win that debate. Indeed, while I recognized on principle your point, your switch back to using an opinion in court, by a judge, for a conviction, confirms exactly what "John of the Dead" argued in this post:

"So, let me see if I understand you correctly, goat fucker. Sen Obama's opinion about his own opinion is inadmissible because it's... opinion? Is that right? In other words, you have arbitrarily disallowed the *ONLY* possible source for an answer to your question? In other other words, you've established a non-falsifiable statement, which, as I'm sure you're aware with you vast knowledge of debating terms, non-falsifiable statements cannot be logically debated. So you set the situation up for failure regardless of position. Great job, goat fucker!"

I wouldn't have argued this point again, but you reintroduced it two entries up, and I'm not going to let that slide, although I had to disabuse you of all of your other illusions first. You're wrong all around, despite your longwindedness.

Now, remember too, that you tried to backtrack last summer from your argument, saying you were not confident that you'd hammered your own case in the 2007 thread, for example, when you said you were just "fairly convinced":

"Regarding judges, I'm fairly convinced that with the exception of a crooked judge or jury, they all use their judgment to determine if a witness is telling the truth."

So, you were not quite so sure that judges could rely their own opinions to find whether a witness was telling the truth, and that was after you claimed that a judge's assessment of an opinion could be used for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt!

You really can't keep things straight, and that's the problem with dishonesty: Sooner or later you get trapped in the web of lies of your own making.

Now back here, as I said, you've prematurely declared your victory.

I'm using definitions as I find them in the authoritative sources. As I noted a synonym is of the SAME meaning, or of extreme proximity, and I never said I didn't cite them. And under your own rules of disallowing parsing, it should be perfectly fine for me to say, as I have all along, that, as noted above:

"Obvious" is an adjective that describes something that's easily or readily seen. Something that's obvious is universally recognized, that is, manifest."

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, which is perfectly reasonable ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN RULES EXCLUDING EXTREME PARSING!!

Not only that, that IS the Webster's definition, with manifest as a synonym for "obvious," which means "seen by all" (which ever "hypodictionary" includes), and you're still protesting and calling me dishonest? That is insane, and that's simply a factual observation, with all due respect, Biowordsmith!

It's like I said in my last post: All the dishonesty's over here, but you're thumping your chest claiming I not only lost this debate "YEARS AGO," but that you "won" the debate from last summer, which concluded, remember, with your own irrational obfuscations and dodges, side-steps that even your own commenter has called you on, a point you refuse to even recognize, precisely because it shows how deviously opportunistic your own debate points of order are!

And then you have the gumption to conclude your post with this:

"But if you want, you can drop this entire part of the debate, as it was never meant to mean anything and is just a distraction."

This is not a distraction at all. Indeed, this thrust shows how completely bereft of integrity you are. I've left the most concise definition, with synonyms to elaborate, and to make it easy for your comprehension, of which you struggle, and then you say that synonyms, which is a word "...having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language.." can't be used? That's whacked, and I've been debating this way all along, but now you're saying, "NO FAIR," and calling me more names, something I've yet to do in this thread in return.

This definition, cited above, fits perfectly the rules you've set forth. And then you say this, a bit earlier:

"One definition isn’t enough, and you don’t even have that. So you resort to synonyms, which even you know aren’t part of the definition."

I don't just resort to synomyms. I only used synonyms to elaborate the point, which I've never denied, nor have I changed any debate rules to get out from a point.

I said originally what "obvious" means:

"Obvious" is an adjective that describes something that's easily or readily seen."

That's the definition in Dictionary.com, that I've given repeatedly:

"easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge; evident..."

I then elaborated the point, at numerous points, to include "manifest," which means the "same" thing; and even if it didn't by your own rules of eliminating extreme parsing, you'd have to concede this current usage as accurate and authoritative.

And now you're trying to twist things all around, and make a scandal of something that's clear in all of my previous iterations. This is just one more red herring, because you can't stay on point.

So don't go claiming victory, Dr. Biowordsmith.

I've been consistent in my usage all along, in this thread and last, and you're now beating you chest like King Kong.

Not only that, when I noted that "slimy polecat" is a common analogy, which hits on Google over 80,000 times, you call that "rationalizations"?

Look, when a debater has to dismiss a combined logical and factual point by the pathetic wave of a hand, trying to wave it away as OVERLY coherent - a "rationalization" - then that just gives up the point. You don't make an outward concession or a counterpoint - you just throw up your hands like a baby in a dirty diaper, Wwaahhh!!

But you continue to protest about my use of analogies, but you've started to deploy my own analogy back at me: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but doesn't do your debating prowess any good.

Note too that you've completely ignored the point that YOU'VE APPEALED TO EXTERNAL VALIDATION OF YOUR POINT AT CARPETBAGGER, about Wright's speeches, which means logically that YOU CONSIDER YOUR OPINION SUBJECT TO SUBSTANTIATION.

You can't just dodge that point by again arguing the same old tired meme of "opinion versus fact." That's where we were last summer, and I've shown here that you're not only wrong ("John" agrees) but you're competely fraudulent.

Now that I've debunked your evasions, let's get back to the point at hand. You've said that:

"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."

Well, why is it "obvious?"

Now that we've got the definitions agreed, and since you've appealed to external validation of your opinion, what universal fact can you identify that proves your point?

Look, I'll make it simple:

I'm reading Matthew Yglesias', "Heads in the Sand," about the GOP's alleged flawed Iraq policy.

He uses obvious "obvious" like this, when discussing the "Friedman Unit," of six month benchmarks for improvement in Iraq:

Begin quote----->

"...Thomas Friedman, probably the most influential foreign affairs commentator in the country, opined that "the next six months in Iraq" ... are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long, time...

But on June 3, 2004 ... Freidman expressed impatience with liberals who wanted to see the war brought to an end... 'I don't get it. It might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months, but what's the rush. Can we let this play out, please?'

Obviously, it did play out. Just as obviously, it wasn't over one month later and it wasn't over six months later...

Thus a full year after Friedman first proclaimed the next sixth months to be decisive, he determined that the next few months were going to be decisive. Were they?"

<-----END QUOTE.

Yglesias can use "obvious" and "obviously" here because he can point to all kinds of objective evidence that war was not improving at that time, including increasing attacks on American troops, increasing roadside bombs, increased suicide attacks, increasing civilian casualties, increasing military fatalities, played on the media over and over, while the world community looked on, and while the the United Nations itself took its mission out of the country from the breakdown of security.

That is obvious, which is why Yglesias doesn't have to cite all the examples I've mentioned. They are "manifest."

You use "obvious" in precisely that same manner, but there is no objective data to which you can refer, even though you tried to appeal in the beginnng to Carpetbagger for corroboration of your statement, so you're defenseless.

So, with that example, I renew what I've asked all along:

"Why is it obvious? Do you have evidence that Obama doesn't believe these things?"

I predict you'll invent some new sub-codicil of rules, to subvert the original set of rules that you used, then broke, and which I called you on last summer, and which your own commenter here confirmed as your own pure hypocrisy.

And you call me dishonest?

Dr. Biowordsmith you're a joke, with all due respect. I long ago had you tied down, and again, all you can do is protest and evade, protest and whine some more, then prevaricate, and them squeam it's all "rationalizations" which a six-grade debater would have pinned down as an empty admission of intellectual impotence.

You're now revealed, once and again, for the true mountebank I've identified all along.

John of the Dead said...

Yes, you ARE dishonest. You've claimed you're not asking for proof of a negative, and yet here you are again:

Do you have evidence that Obama doesn't believe these things?

Which is it? Are you requesting a logically impossible proof, or are you lying about NOT requesting a logically impossible proof? From later:

I already proved this debate is not now - I repeat - not about proving a negative

Which is it, you lying goat fucker? When your logical quandary was pointed out to you, you spun it around so fast it caused dizziness two threads over. Then you abandoned that tack, and went with the semantics debate over "obvious." After resorting to home-made definitions and lying about what your own, hand-picked Webster's said, you're now back to requests for proof of a negative. We've come full circle.

I asked this earlier, but you ignored it (I'm guessing because you have no cogent response); nevertheless, I'll ask again: Do you not realize that anyone can scroll up and see what you've already written? You've been caught flip-flopping several times already. Denials make you look shifty. Face it - by every conceivable measure, you've lost this debate. Go back to the pasture.

American said...

"John of the Dead":

I see that you're mad that I've used your own words to extremely penetrating effect against your esteemed polecat-like Dr. Biowordsmith.

Unfortunately for you (as you're like a broken record, ad nauseum, remember), I've already put the "proving a negative" meme away, but I'll repost the key riposte to refresh your memory. Recall, there are legal exceptions to the rule, and Dr. Biowordsmith repeatedly refers to legal standards of proof, as I noted in my previous comment:

BEGIN QUOTE----->

"As for the legal case, you just confirmed my logic. Look, there may be some cases in which a reversed burden of proof is okay. You noted the example yourself: The "prosecution must prove guilt, and the defense need not "prove" innocence, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you" wrote (and I had to do some fancy editing there, because you're so inflamed, "John of the Dead," you can't write half worth a damn).

Still, as you concede, there's a legal presumption of innocence, which is specifically intended, obviously (to use Biobrain's word) to protect the liberty of those accused. Spin it how you want, but the DEFENSE can argue his client's innocent in the absence of proof to the contrary. This is exactly the exception I noted, and it's just pissing you off that you can't get around it, which has you so frustrated you're left - again! - with nothing but four-letter expletives.

Not good man! And remember, Dr. Biobrain claims court of law argumentation, so if that's not applicable now, then his case from last summer's out the window. If one goes back to look at that thread, I prevailed in the final analysis, because, I turned the tables in using Dr. Biobrain's own logic against him, but all he could do was cry, "it's moot, it's moot, can't you see, I won. Whaaahhhh Ahhhh!!!"

<-----END QUOTE

Not only that, remember you've already stated the illogic of Dr. Biobrain's positions, with regard to Obama's opinion:

BEGIN QUOTE----->

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, goat fucker. Sen Obama's opinion about his own opinion is inadmissible because it's... opinion? Is that right? In other words, you have arbitrarily disallowed the *ONLY* possible source for an answer to your question? In other other words, you've established a non-falsifiable statement, which, as I'm sure you're aware with you vast knowledge of debating terms, non-falsifiable statements cannot be logically debated. So you set the situation up for failure regardless of position. Great job, goat fucker!"

<-----END QUOTE

The key issue now is Dr. Biowordmith's complete collapse of intregrity, which I've demonstrated decisively, as well as the central point in contention, the use of "obvious" with reference to what Obama knows.

The Yglesias example's key and conclusive in hammering Dr. Biowordsmith's impotence.

I'm now just waiting for the concession, either that or a few more external blog posts pleading to the (non)readership here that Dr. Biobrain's six-year old daughter's a real bright light.

Let's just hope the apple rolls far, far away from the tree!

Doctor Biobrain said...

So that’s why you call me “Biowordsmith.” I’m not sure what satisfaction you get from calling me silly names, but I can assure you that it’d be much more effective if you just saved those for recess. And yes, I know. You’ll insist that it’s not name-calling because it’s an accurate description of me, which is exactly why I call you a dumbass. By your standards, it’s not name-calling if the name is accurate. BTW, “dumbass” gets 6,020,000 hits in Google, so I’m sure you’ll respect the authority of the claim.

And don’t get me started on “ad hominem attacks.” Your entire debate style is ad hominem. It’s NEVER about my argument. Everything you write is about me personally. And you merely use my arguments to demonstrate what type of person you imagine me to be, but it’s never really about the arguments themselves. It’s all about demonstrating a point you’re trying to make, even if that point is entirely devoid of reality. I know, you’ll deny all of this, but you’ve already shown a complete lack of understanding on even the most basic matters of reality, so I have no doubt that you’ll accuse me of making a cheap smear against you by saying this. It’s all about me, isn’t it?

As for your “Precise definition,” Donald, your “definition” includes synonyms as well your own inventions, like that “universally recognized” malarkey. How is that precise? And what is this “extreme parsing” you speak of. You mean because I want to use actual definitions instead of invented definitions? Surely even you understand how absurd that is. Sorry pal, but I refuse to accept invented definitions. Deal with it.

And again, you’ve got to show that the word “obvious” can NEVER apply to an opinion. And all I need to show is that it can apply. And I’ve done that, repeatedly. And your denial of reality doesn’t change that fact.

And when did I ever protest against the use of Webster’s Dictionary? I protested against your invented redefinitions, and you protested against Hyperdictionary, which included the same definition from Webster’s; but I never said anything was wrong with Webster’s definition. But you clearly did, otherwise you wouldn’t have had to invent your own meaning to the word.

As for the judge thing, you are still mistaken. The verdict in a trial is based upon the “opinion” of the judge or jury. What else can it be? People can create their own opinions of the facts, but they can’t create their own facts. And BTW, I only brought it up because you did, when you said I was making “hypocritical claims” and you attacked my confidence in reality.

And once again, I will remind you that when I wrote that I was “fairly confident” that I used that phrase sarcastically, because I was TOTALLY CONFIDENT of this. I’m not sure what brain deficiency you suffer from that causes you to not understand that, but it’s true all the same. I explained that at the time, I explained it last time I wrote about it, and I’m repeating it now. It was sarcasm and I was mocking you when I used it. Beyond that, it doesn’t matter HOW I described that, as it’s most definitely the truth. And because I’m not a post-modernist like you, I realize that the truth doesn’t depend on me to be true. Judges rely upon their judgment, no matter how I described it.

And I fail to understand your point on my citation of Carpetbagger. So, because I cited somebody else’s opinion, that means that my own opinion magically turns into a fact? Will you EVER understand what an opinion is? My statement could NEVER have been an empirical claim under ANY circumstances. Are you really this dense?

As for your statement on Yglesias, that’s insane. Yes, factual statements can be obvious. But so can opinion statements. Like your opinion that it wouldn’t be in the nation’s or military’s interest if we hastily pulled out of Iraq. But I guess that’s why you have to continue to ignore the fact that you stated that your opinion was “obvious,” because it undermines everything you’ve said. And you dare accuse me of evasion.

As for your analogies, do you really consider those to be debate points? On what planet? They’re insults. And the reason I’m copying you on that is because I’m mocking you, dumbass. I’ve been mocking you in almost everything I’ve written, but you’re such a dumbass that you can’t even see it. Even my use of “still waiting for that concession” was mockery. As is my use of the name “Fouglas.”. I’ve been mocking you this whole time. You, sir, are the butt of my jokes and I am having immense fun making them.

And by the way, I didn’t say that you lost the debate “YEARS AGO.” I said you lost your credibility “YEARS AGO.” Jesus christ, you’re such a dumbass. You keep trying to rub my nose in your own ignorance.

And finally, I know you’ll never concede defeat on any of this, because it would simply destroy your already low self-esteem, but the thing is, I don’t need your concession of defeat. You see, I live in the world of reality and know when I’ve won a debate. And I’ve routed you good in every case. I DO declare victory on this, just as I declared victory last summer, and continue to declare victory with every comment on this thread. Why? Because I keep winning, dumbass. And again, it’s not dependent on your opinion for me to know this. I’ve won and saying so isn’t a debate ruse; it’s an admission of reality.

But I guess that’s something you wouldn’t know much about, being a post-modernist who thinks he’s quoting Webster’s Dictionary when he invents his own definitions. As I’ve said before, you are everything you loathe. I’d actually feel sorry for you if you weren’t such an obnoxious a-hole. (“Obnoxious a-hole” only gets 714 hits on Google, so you might not consider that claim to be authoritative.”)

Oh, and just as a clue: There was yet again more mockery in this comment, so tread cautiously before taking my words too literally…and that includes this sentence, in which I mock your inability to decipher basic mockery.

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biowordsmith:

Despite your disclaimers, you seem to be obssessed with this debate, writing posts about it denouncing descriptions of your debating style such as "postmodernism" - saying that these don't bother you, blah, bhah, and then getting some group flagellation going so you'll feel better.

Whatever man, but I will note that certainly just using the term "debate" with you is stretching it, since you've admitted you just cherry-pick a couple of lines before laying out more of your bull:

----->

"And to tell you the truth, there isn't one of his comments that I've fully read. It hurts my brain to try to decipher his weird "reasoning," and so I only skim his comments for a few choice points."

<-----

This is from your post, "How I Became a Slimy Polecat."

Well you certainly haven't read anything here, especially my references.

It is your protestations against extreme parsing from last summer that's at issue, and hence your rule. I already quoted you, but to refresh:

"The arguments you make here are moot ... Besides, most of your points here involve extreme parsing of sentences to make any case at all."

Okay, you got that?

You reject extreme parsing, so you cannot be consistent with your meme now. You're in fact a total hypocrite, which I've shown all along.

At the beginning of your use of "obvious" I defined it as "self-evident," "recognized," and knowable." Since that which is self-evident cannot be restricted from those with the powers of perception, what is "obvious" is indeed universal. So, then, I used a synonym to STRESS THE DEFINITION THAT I ORIGINALLY PROVIDED, and the evidence is in the thread in multiple places.

You're just playing more hide and seek, because if what's obvious is indeed self-evident, open for all to see, then you need to explain why you can describe Obama's knowledge as "obvious."

Recall I wrote above:

------>

"It's logically impossible to limit what's "evident" to some sub-category of perceptants in your demand, since something that is "easily seen" should be so to anyone who percieves it, hence its universality."

<-----

You have to disprove that, but you can't so you call me a "dumbass."

So you refuse.

The rest is just junky, pseudo debating points, and you've admitted at your "Slimy Polecat" post that you're not serious. You just refuse to quit a challenge from someone you routinely denounce in third party discussions as a fraud and a nutjob.

And then you say:

"And again, you’ve got to show that the word “obvious” can NEVER apply to an opinion. And all I need to show is that it can apply. And I’ve done that, repeatedly. And your denial of reality doesn’t change that fact."

Why you keep arguing this is beyond me, only other than to stonewall? Sure, an opinion is an opinion, and you're entitled to yours. But as I've said, you've stated an opinion (1) on a question of objectifiable knowledge, Obama's beliefs on Wright, and (2) you've appealed in comparison for greater intellectual acceptance of your views by seeking substantiation in the positions of Carpetbagger, which you rountinely cited in past debates as an authority.

So, it's not me who's denying reality, it you; instead of debating a point with integrity, you call me insane:

"As for your statement on Yglesias, that’s insane. Yes, factual statements can be obvious. But so can opinion statements. Like your opinion that it wouldn’t be in the nation’s or military’s interest if we hastily pulled out of Iraq. But I guess that’s why you have to continue to ignore the fact that you stated that your opinion was “obvious,” because it undermines everything you’ve said. And you dare accuse me of evasion."

You omit two key points here: (1) You assert Obama's belief just as Yglesias states the obvious situation in Iraq, and (2) you keep smuggling in my statements that have never been in debate.

You have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the proposing debater, and as you have proposed that it's obvious what Obama knows, and I've never admitted my own posts into this thread, you cannot bring them in yourself. You're trying to burden shift, and it's a logical fallacy according to all the widely accepted standards of argumentation.

So, yes, you are TOTALLY EVASIVE!!

What else would describe it? I've got you pinned down once more, and you not only dismiss impeccable logic as "insane" (your favorite plausibly deniable slur), but you try (2) to get out from under your burden by putting me on the spot.

Sorry Charlie, it's not working very well for you. Maybe you could pull that off with Repsac3, as he's an easy one, but you're obssessed with me, most likely because you don't like being intellectuall bettered by a professor.

(And keep in mind, I haven't ever mentioned my academic position, and only do so now because your constant discussion of my credentials reveal, it seems, a strange yearning or incompletenesss of achievement on your end, so you lash out at that which you don't understand. It's sad, really, but understandable for someone who's fundamentally anti-intellectual.)

And now look at this:

"As for your analogies, do you really consider those to be debate points? On what planet? They’re insults. And the reason I’m copying you on that is because I’m mocking you, dumbass."

You're calling me a "dumbass," and that's after I gave you a perfectly legitimate and reasonable comparative precis on how I can argue your attempts to unpack yourself from being pinned down resemle the efforts of a slimy polecat, a term used widely in the English lexicon, as proven by Google.

You're dishonest here, and as I've said all along, you're digging yourself deeper, and your protests and declamations are making you look more sorry all the time.

And this is false:

"And by the way, I didn’t say that you lost the debate “YEARS AGO.” I said you lost your credibility “YEARS AGO.” Jesus christ, you’re such a dumbass. You keep trying to rub my nose in your own ignorance."

Look, that's a lie. This your quote from above:

----->

"And no, I’ve never stopped remembering that the position you imagine I’m in is the same one you were in during our N=1 debate. It’s obvious that I won that debate, and this is your only hope for revenge."

<------

You love "obvious," obviously, so let me quote that sentence again:

"It’s obvious that I won that debate, and this is your only hope for revenge."

That's the key, Dr. Biorefusalmaster.

So, not only do I repeat my point one more time, that I never conceded last summer's debate, and the thread from "Bush Invented Terrorism" proves the truth, but now I've caught you in a bald-faced distortion if not lie.

You have said I lost the debate, now you're saying that I only lost my "credibility"?

Does everyone get that? Dr. Biostorysmith can't keep his web in place.

Indeed, this whole exchange reveals this line to be utterly false:

"I don’t need your concession of defeat. You see, I live in the world of reality and know when I’ve won a debate."

Look, proclaim youself the winner all you want. Even your own commenter got confused by your obfuscations, and turned your logic around on you when he thought the baloney about "opinion versus fact" was indeed my claim.

LOL!!

It wasn't. It was yours, and you conveniently ignore the point again.

If this was a real college debate, your tautologies, refusals to acknowledge superior argumentation, your regular sweeping generalizations, and you ad hominems right here, defined as attacking the character of your debater as a "dumbass" rather than the ideas at hand, would have left you in the grass long ago.

Don't let a few exclusvive-video-posting-non-orignal thinkers who comment here try to convince you otherwise. In contrast, in response to your trashing of my integretity and professional reputation, you've seen genuinely excellent testimonials to my skills and integrity, and all you can do is turn up your nose. Hmmph!!

That's not compelling, or honest, for that matter.

So, again, proclaim yourself the wiinner all you want. The truth is, had you said it "seems" Obama's views Wright's hatred differently, rather than it's obvious what he beleives, than I might never have even left a comment at this thread.

The reality is you're dishonest, untrustworthy, and unwilling to admit you made a mistake.

And considering you back the most vile anti-Americanism in your defense of Pastor Wright's evil sermons, I'm not going to let it slide.

Dr. Biowordinventor said...

Don, what is with your penchant for blatant hypocrisy? Who the hell are you to criticize me for being “obsessed” with this debate, when you’ve written more comments on it than I have? And why? Because you think I used ONE WORD incorrectly; though I definitely used it the same way you do on your blog.

And either “flagellation” doesn’t mean what I think it means, or you’ve got a really weird idea of what goes on around here. I don’t know what kinky stuff you West Coast Elitists do with your debates, but Texans like me and John really try to keep things pretty clean around here, thank you very much. Please keep your group flagellations to yourself.

And damn, but you’re predictable. I knew that if you read the line about me skimming your comments that you’d try to make hay about it. But what choice do I have? They’re all so rambling, nonsensical, and repetitious that it pains me to read them. Sorry, but it’s true. So I just try to skim past all the personal smears and try to locate the bits that most approximate debate points

Besides, it’s obvious that you don’t care about my arguments at all. As I said before, it’s all about me. You are a walking ad hominem and you don’t even know it. You’re upset that I whupped your hide last summer and now want revenge, which has now come down to you insisting that I used ONE WORD incorrectly. How pathetic.

And so you’re still going with the idea that using actual definitions involves “extreme parsing?” Do you even know what parsing means? But in any case, you’re the one trying to restrict the word into meaning it’s most narrow sense, one in which you invented yourself; while I’m the one using a more broadly understood one, which you yourself use. So if “parsing” is the correct word for what’s happening here, and I’m not sure it is, then it would be you who are taking it to the extreme.

And I understand that you redefined the word “obvious” to fit your needs. Tell me something I didn’t know. Try using a dictionary next time and you won’t have to invent your own definition. Again “universality” is one of your own inventions. Please stop embarrassing yourself this way. Or are you imagining that you’ve somehow hornswaggled me into accepting your invented definition, according to the rules of debate that you created yourself?

And as I’ve been trying to explain to you since our first debate, we can never truly know what anyone else thinks. Obama’s beliefs on Wright can never be considered a knowable fact any more than Bush’s beliefs on our troops. We can have opinions on these things, but we can never have “objectifiable knowledge” of them. That’s what I’ve been trying to explain to you the whole time. And again, my opinion can’t be an empirical statement, even if I cite somebody else’s opinion to show that they had the same opinion I had. Please, please, please learn what an opinion is.

As for the Yglesias thing, that’s entirely stupid. Yes, I fully agree that facts can be obvious. What does that have to do with anything? And why the hell can’t I “admit” your posts into evidence? Why do I get the feeling that you think this is a court of law and that you’re the judge? Look, you used the word “obvious” in the exact way I did. Why do you continue to stonewall on this? Besides, if you can “admit” Yglesias’ statement into evidence, I fail to see why I can’t “admit” yours; especially as your usage was much more relevant to the discussion. Cherrypicking indeed.

And wow, did you really embarrass yourself with the “your only hope is revenge” quotation. Sorry dumbass, but that was the wrong line. You said “All the dishonesty's over here, but you're thumping your chest claiming I not only lost this debate ‘YEARS AGO’…" so I was responding to your quoting my “YEARS AGO” line. I was saying it was “YEARS AGO” that you lost your credibility, not that you lost the debate “YEARS AGO.” But I fully acknowledge that you lost the N=1 debate last summer. Please try to keep up.

And btw, I use “obvious” and “obviously” as a repeated mocking of you. Jesus dude, my six-year-old daughter has a better sense of sarcasm than you; though she knows to laugh at it, while you’d just have your feeling hurt.

And you actually admit that this is all over ONE WORD, because I said “obvious” instead of “seems.” That’s it. You’ve got no other point than the dumbest of all semantic debates and you dare accuse me of fraud. You are a complete failure.

But again, I’m under no delusion that this is about that word at all. This is all about me. Your entire argument is nothing but an ad hominem assault against me. Not because you call me names, but because you don’t care what I say. You just hate me because I keep destroying you in these debates, yet I’m not even really trying. These posts are long, but require very little thought. Why would they? I’m debating you, a guy who doesn’t even understand the concepts he imagines he’s espousing. My biggest problem is figuring out how to break things down into little words that even you can understand; while you continue to spout out big words nonsensically. You know them by context; not concept.

But this isn’t about opinions or what is “obvious.” You’re “not going to let it slide” because it’s me. It’s all personal for you, which is what makes it so fun for me. I only initially ever commented about the N=1 thing because I was trying to be helpful because you made a bad debate point. And even now, I’m hoping that you eventually see reason and stop this public humiliation you continue to bring upon yourself. But you won’t, because you’re a man obsessed.

So you’ll play your games and flip-flop and squeeze yourself into your own self-created corner; all because you have to reject me, which means rejecting reality. You screwed up by ever tangling in this debate and now you’re trapped because you can never admit that you made this mistake. Even now, you read through my new posts in a desperate bid to find something you can finally attack me on, but keep coming up emptyhanded.

I pity you, Donald. I really do. But dammit, if I’m not having fun with it all. As I’ve said before, I just hope that you’re really the professor you claim to be, because I’d really feel guilty if it turned out I was debating the halfwit you seem to be. Oh, but can you cite some more outside references telling us how great you are? That might be just the thing to convince me of your awesomeness. And yes, that was more sarcasm, while this sentence is laden with mockery. Ahh, good times.

John of the Dead said...

Wow, you have no idea what a logical proof is, do you, goat fucker? I've got to call bullshit. There's no way a political science professor can be so rock-stupid ignorant as to the nature of both logical proofs and the courtroom burden of proof of guilt. Somebody's pulling my leg. Either this goat fucker isn't really a professor, or they're giving away degrees in boxes of Cracker Jack these days, because it's obvious you don't have to actually know anything to get the gig, if yonder goat fucker can do it. (Note again, goat fucker, these are insults. Not ad hominem attacks. Are you learning that key distinction yet?)

already put the "proving a negative" meme away

How so? It was the first thing you asked:

Do you have evidence that Obama doesn't believe these things?

That is a request for the proof of a negative. You cannot hold both positions simultaneously. Either you are requesting proof of a negative, which is erroneous burden shifting on your part, or you're not, in which case: why the hell are you still posting, since you've lost? You're faced will the choice between a logical fallacy or a concession. Which would you prefer?

Still, as you concede, there's a legal presumption of innocence, which is specifically intended, obviously (to use Biobrain's word) to protect the liberty of those accused

As I concede? That's rich. I had to specifically point that out to you, you idiot. Do you really think the past is some sort of malleable substance which you can change just by wishing it to be so? I'm sorry you've been wrong about logical proofs and legal burden of evidence from the start, but you cannot now start claiming you were right, after I had to set you straight. I would call you pathetic, but that's not accurate, as you do not, in fact, elicit feelings of pathos.

the DEFENSE can argue his client's innocent in the absence of proof to the contrary

Yep, you're stupid. If there's no evidence of guilt, the defense doesn't have to do a damn thing. Right, goat fucker?

OK, let me see if I can explain this using set theory. In order to conclusively prove a negative, you would have to examine and discard every member of an infinite set, without necessarily knowing the extent of the set. For example, if someone were to claim, "There's no such thing as a purple goose," that is not a logically provable statement. One would have to examine EVERY goose in the world to see if it was purple or not. Even after every known goose was examined, one could claim, "But maybe you missed one. Keep looking." Therefore, the logical way to go about it is with the claim, "A purple goose exists," and the person making the claim providing evidence of the purple goose.

If one could limit oneself to a finite set, the situation changes. One could claim, "None of these six geese are purple," and that could be verified. However, I would urge you to note that what is being proved is not technically a negative, but rather a mutually exclusive contrapositive. "If a goose is white, gray, or black, it cannot be purple. These six geese are all white. Therefore, none are purple." See?

How does this apply to legal theory and legal defense? In legal cases, the defendant is not faced with an infinite set. One is not charged simply with "Murder," as it would be impossible to prove that one has never murdered anyone, ever, at any time. No, one is charged with a specific murder, under specific circumstances, at a certain place and time. That creates a finite set. Of course, if the prosecution has no evidence, the defense can stand mute, and must be acquitted, as no evidence was presented. If, however, the prosecution has evidence that places the defendant within the pre-defined finite set, the defense may offer proof of a mutually exclusive contrapositive. For example, "The defendant was in Little Rock, Arkansas, at the time of the crime, not Reno; therefore, he could not have shot this man just to watch him die." But, again, they are NOT proving innocence; they are proving a mutually exclusive contrapositive. Got that?

(It makes me very, very sad that I'm forced into an elementary-level explanation of logical proof and legal defense in a political debate, especially with someone who claims to be a political science professor.)

So, where does that bring us? Oh, yes, your first post:

Do you have evidence that Obama doesn't believe these things?

Now, I'm sorry you made a mistake in requesting proof of a negative. I really am. But, it's your own fault, and getting mad at the people trying to correct you won't help anything. Neither will claiming you didn't ask for a logically impossible proof of a negative.

Finally, allow me to repeat my challenge to you from earlier. You claim that Rev Wright hates America. Prove it. Prove it or concede. And remember, we can't take what he said to prove it, as that's all opinion. It has to be objective, verifiable evidence. Sorry, but those are your rules. You've made this bed; let's see if you can lie in it.

repsac3 said...

"The defendant was in Little Rock, Arkansas, at the time of the crime, not Reno; therefore, he could not have shot this man just to watch him die."

Fortunately, that crazy fucker confessed, and ended up in Folsom prison, singing the blues... (Shoulda listened to his mama...)

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biohypocrite said:

"Because you think I used ONE WORD incorrectly; though I definitely used it the same way you do on your blog."

No, I don't think you've used "ONE WORD" incorrectly. I know you've used one word incorrecty. I not only know it, I've proved it here in this thread, and that explains why you're so obssessed that you have to receive external support outside of this thread for flagellatory validation: See, "How I Became a Slimy Polecat."

How about this:

"And damn, but you’re predictable. I knew that if you read the line about me skimming your comments that you’d try to make hay about it."

You shouldn't have written it, since that shows you're just pulling my leg, stringing this thread out for undeserved bragging rights. Note, as I've pionted out many times, I've pinned you down and you can't get away, so you just keep rolling along with all the side distractions.

And now this:

"Besides, it’s obvious that you don’t care about my arguments at all. As I said before, it’s all about me. You are a walking ad hominem and you don’t even know it."

Ah, calling Dr. Sanity, calling Dr. Sanity! Emergency assistance is required in the psych ward. We have an extreme case of projection and denial on our hands, in the case of Dr. Biohypocrite. Requesting emergency shock treatment, stat!!

Hey, perhaps here's an appropriate avenue for treatment:

"And so you’re still going with the idea that using actual definitions involves “extreme parsing?” Do you even know what parsing means?"

That's your standard strategy, Dr. Biohypocrite.

Every time I pin you down on your own wording, you allege that I don't know what something means.

It's a good thing you haven't deleted yet! Man, you're just making my case for me!

ROFLMFAO!!

But this line is killer, wait, hold on, let me get off the floor...okay:

"And as I’ve been trying to explain to you since our first debate, we can never truly know what anyone else thinks. Obama’s beliefs on Wright can never be considered a knowable fact any more than Bush’s beliefs on our troops."

Sorry, if that's true, you shouldn't have said what Obama knows is "obvious," because by our accepted narrow definition, what's obvious is "recognized" and "open to knowledge."

Hence, obvious is a word that makes sense only in the way of external validity, because the term refers others to some outwardly manifest and recognizable phenomenon. Like, for example, Yglesias' use of "obvious" when discussing FU, or also Lanny Davis' use of "clear," when he said that Obama should distance himself from Wright.

This is how everyone with reason in public debate uses the terms under discussion, but over here we've got the Lewis Carrol world of semantic make-believe.

But here too:

"And you actually admit that this is all over ONE WORD, because I said “obvious” instead of 'seems.'"

Well, no. This thread's mainly about your dishonesty and hypocrisy, and also your laziness, which you admitted in your other post, when you indicated you don't really read what's written.

No wonder I ask myself why I waste my time on someone who can't keep up. You've admitted that following the debate's difficult for you, and that your eyes glaze over in frustration and impotence.

I'm waiting for that concession, Doc.

repsac3 said...

What a pisser...

The friggin' guy still thinks everyone who reads his tortured reasoning isn't laughing at him, and still thinks he's won (as he claims in every friggin' message.)

He thinks you're appealing to outside forces to bolster your weak argument, oblivious to the fact that he's linked &/or quoted a whole slew of fellow wingnuts--and even a few former students--to bolster his own wacky little case.

He keeps claiming you're going to delete this post, unaware that others are copying it just in case your site ever fails, because unintentional comedy as funny as our fair professor's should never be lost to the public.

And finally, he keeps claiming that he's wasting his time coming here... ...but he keeps coming back, to be trounced again & again, like a masochistic polecat. (No references on Google, for whatever that may be worth.)

Doctor Biobrain said...

Donald, why do you insist on proving me right every time? I said that you’re only doing this to attack me and not my arguments, and what do you do? You spend most of your comment attacking me instead of what I wrote. Thanks, but I already knew I was right. You didn’t need to give me confirmation.

As for your “you shouldn't have said what Obama knows is "obvious," because by our accepted narrow definition, what's obvious is "recognized" and "open to knowledge." thing, have you even been following our argument? I’ve disputed these lameass inventions of yours as much as I can. I thought we were using Webster’s definition…and you even entertained my hated “Hypodictionary” definition a few times, and frankly, I’m not sure why we should discount any valid dictionary. But now you’re pretending as if I’ve ever accepted the narrowest confines of your invented definition? Why would I have done that? You only invented it because it was the only way you could prove your point and I’ve repeatedly mocked you for continuing to push that silly definition. Who the hell are you trying to fool?

Oh, and when you wrote “This is how everyone with reason in public debate uses the terms under discussion” I literally laughed out loud. So you admit that you don’t have reason? Or are you still pretending as if you didn’t use the word in the exact way that I used it? Your evasion of this point doesn’t make it go away, even if you refuse to “admit” it into evidence according to the Donald Fouglas Rules of Debate.

And then you end by once again proving my point: Your entire argument is ad hominem. I quote “Well, no. This thread's mainly about your dishonesty and hypocrisy, and also your laziness, which you admitted in your other post, when you indicated you don't really read what's written.

And that’s exactly what I meant when I wrote “But this isn’t about opinions or what is “obvious.” You’re “not going to let it slide” because it’s me. It’s all personal for you, which is what makes it so fun for me.” And it’s absolutely true and you admitted it repeatedly. This isn’t about that word. It’s all about me and you needing to finally prove me wrong on something. Well it ain’t going to happen here, no matter how many times you pretend I accepted your invented definition.

You lost this debate for the same reason you lost the other one: You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and think your little logical tricks can undermine me long enough for me to tire of your endless insults. Well sorry Fouglas, but that ain’t going to happen either. I can keep this up as long as you do. Especially as it’s obvious you’re still pissed at me, while I’m laughing at you.

But I will admit, you were right about one thing: I am much too lazy to read everything you write. Guilty as charged. Fortunately, you wrote a lot less this time, which meant I was able to read more of it; but it still was mostly noise and insults, which really cuts down on my ability to read it. If you could cut down on the empty insults and noise and focus on trying to say stuff, I’d read more of what you wrote. But I guess you wouldn’t have much to say beyond that.

So you can keep up with your admittedly ad hominem debate and I will keep up laughing at you. You’re a pathetic scoundrel, Donald, and I’m always glad to have you make a fool of yourself for my amusement. But that’s the weird thing in all this: I’m not really doing anything. You keep forcing yourself into worser and worser positions and all I have to do is stay rock steady.

Oh, and just as a helpful tip, you can stop with the Lanny Davis reference, as it’s obvious you’re forgetting what it was. Remember, you were of the opinion that Davis had “the same useage” that I did when he used the word “clear.” But now you’re saying he used it in the same way that Yglesias used “obvious,” which is clearly mistaken. You can debate me on this if you want, but I’m just trying to help. But again, my attempts at fixing your mistakes is what brought your ire on me in the first place. Some people just hate to be corrected.

Americaneocon said...

You're just like a hamster on an excercise wheel, Dr. Biohypcrite - spin, spin, spin, ad nauseusm...

Get a grip, man!!!

You haven't even addressed my points. Not one word about your own hypocrisy. I'll have more on that, which as I've said all along, is utltimately what all this is aobut, as I've shown repeatedly and people are starting to notice.

You say:

"I’m not sure why we should discount any valid dictionary."

Of course you're not sure. As long as you can find a slightly different definition of "obvious" you can't keep spinning out your comment count on this post. You're really impressed with yourself.

But there are standards, of course. Why shouldn't some Texas teachers' college be considered as prestigious as Harvard? It's still an institution of higher education. Boy, Lyndon Johnson sure would have loved an advisor with your nihilist logic: "Mr. President, it's the Kennedys and the public, sir, they don't understand that your teachers' colllege is just as academically esteemed as the nation's oldest university. Any old college will do sir. We can forget what the public thinks."

You've got no sense of historical and logical proportion, Dr. Biohihilist.

The problem for you is that I've shown, by even your standards, any use of "obvious" that makes reference to the external validity of the term shows that you need to have a reference in fact when stating what Obama knows.

I don't get off on Lanny Davis. As I said all along, Davis uses "clear" in the absence of denial and hypocrisy. Yglesias does too.(Davis is a Democrat who at least hones in on the evil nature of Wright's hate speech, but you embrace it, with all of your other anti-conservative rants.)

But I'll give you another example:

Lynn Sweet uses "obvious" as well when discussing Obama and Wright:

----->

"The controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Sen. Barack Obama's pastor -- is speaking Monday at the National Press Club as part of a divinity conference of black church leaders...

Wright looms as a serious problem for Obama in his fight to be the Democratic presidential nominee over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and, if he wins, as a general election candidate against Sen. John McCain. Look no further than an ad the North Carolina Republican Party released Wednesday featuring a clip from Wright's "God Damn America" sermon and calling Obama an "extremist."

Fox News has been all over Wright -- helicopter shots of his Tinley Park mansion under construction -- and host Bill O'Reilly has been pounding Obama over Wright regularly on his show.

The backfire potential of Wright having any sort of a public profile at this point seems obvious."

<----

Notice Sweet's usage: It "seems" obvious that for Wright to have a public profile it would backfire, it would have negative ramifications for Obama.

So, once more, like Davis, and then Yglesias, we've got someone who uses "obvious" with reference to OBJECTIVE REALITY!!

You're off in your own Alice in Wonderland word play semantic heaven, dancing back and forth between meanings of obvious that you think will get you off the hook. Then you play more canards to change the subject!

That's classic Biowordsmithian!

I've used a single defintiion of "obvious," from Dictionary.com, as cited, then provided elaborations to kindly facilitate your understanding (to penetrate the thickness around here), but as you don't reside in the objective language world of the rest of us, you attempt to hide behind endless - and as you've admitted, you'll never quit, even though you don't really read the posts - utterly endless obfuscations, red herrings, and denials.

But more about Sweet, which pins you down even further: Sweet says the backfire potential of Wright's coming back out to public light "seems" obvious because there's no clear database of factual information on which to confirm her point.

She's on firm ground in specifying that while she can't fully prove it's obvious that Wright's facing backfire potential, it's safe to say it "seems" he'd be.

So, again, all the references to "clear," "obvious," and "seems" are completely relevant to your legerdemain.

If you wanted to be credible in this post, you would have written something like "it seems clear" that Obama holds different views than Wright," or even it "seems obvious."

But that's not what you did. You used obvious without any qualification, which means for the rest of us in the real world, you had in mind some information that was "self-evident," and "perceptable to the mind" - (from hypo-dictionary, which helps all of those who're tied off and whacked out jonesing for some way out of the their disaster) - as to why Obama believes the things he does about Wright.

So there you have it.

Each time I give you another killer example, you go off on another parsing spin, and that takes nerve, because I've already shown that you're totally hypocritical when in it comes to rules: You make up a standard, then throw it out when it doesn't suit you, then you deny, deny, deny. Remember, Bush invented terrorism, right? You squirmed then, contradicted yourself, and you're squealing now.

You're not looking too good, Dr. Biowordsmith. I'll just keep providing examples of people who don't reside in the ethereal world of evil nihilism and postmodern denialism, although I know that you're so driven with not being out as the mountebank that you are, that you'll continue to squirm and squeal like a crushed polecat pinned down by an exterminator.

It's like Dr. Sanity says:

"Every one of us has at one point or another in our lives had to face an unpleasant reality or painful truth and at the very least probably desperately wished it would go away. The first words out of the mouth of someone notified of the sudden death of a friend or loved one is usually an involuntary exclamation of, “NO!” And this initial--and universal-- angry refusal to accept the pain we would feel if the death were real, is perfectly natural. The negative reaction gives us some time to readjust our thinking and our feelings and prepare mentally and physically for the horrible reality of death.

But if you are still saying, “No, it can’t be true!” days and weeks after the death; refusing to face the reality; then you are in serious denial."

Sweet's essay is at my blog, so go there for verification of someone who's head in the factual, correct-language useage world, Dr. Biodenialist.

repsac3 said...

But there are standards, of course. Why shouldn't some Texas teachers' college be considered as prestigious as Harvard? It's still an institution of higher education. Boy, Lyndon Johnson sure would have loved an advisor with your nihilist logic: "Mr. President, it's the Kennedys and the public, sir, they don't understand that your teachers' colllege is just as academically esteemed as the nation's oldest university. Any old college will do sir. We can forget what the public thinks."

Of course, what our fair professor fails to note is that a degree from either institution is a degree. One does not throw away a degree from a "lesser" institution because Harvard is considered a better institution. (&, does anyone else find it odd that he's raggin' on "less prestigious" places of learning, given where he teaches? One would think he'd be talking them up, not down... He's acting like a self-loathing elitist polecat... I'm quite proud of my community, state, and private university experiences, and found all of them quite good.)

While there are lesser dictionaries (like "The Urban Dictionary," for instance) Donnie hasn't actually shown that Bio's chosen dictionary or definition of "obvious" is inferior to his own.

The problem for you is that I've shown, by even your standards, any use of "obvious" that makes reference to the external validity of the term shows that you need to have a reference in fact when stating what Obama knows.

I'm pretty sure this is about what Obama believes, not what he knows... ...and, as Bio's opinion of what Obama believes is not contradicted by anything Obama has said or done, there is nothing to prove. The fact that he hasn't expressed views by word or deed that prove he agrees with Wright is proof enough that he doesn't. Perhaps your misssanity can delve further, but for most Americans, the fact that there's no proof that he agrees with Wright is sufficient enough to reject the wingnut charge that he does.

The reference to fact is the lack of proof of the charge by those alleging it.

Notice Sweet's usage: It "seems" obvious that for Wright to have a public profile it would backfire, it would have negative ramifications for Obama.

So, it's use of the word "seems" that changes this whole thing? Is it not possible that the word "seems" is implied in Bio's statement? Is it not obvious to everyone (except you, obviously) that he is stating an opinion, which itself implies the word "seems"? Are you as dense as you seem, or should that answer be obvious?

So, once more, like Davis, and then Yglesias, we've got someone who uses "obvious" with reference to OBJECTIVE REALITY!!

And you believe that therefore, EVERYONE must use it in exactly the same way, even though the dictionary definition of the word (including your own prestigious one) does not so specify. There is in fact no such requirement for the word's usage except in your own polecat mind. (And even your own usage of the word in other settings does not follow this made up rule--but we can't talk about that--only YOUR examples and appeals to fellow wingnuts for extraneous validation are permitted.

You're off in your own Alice in Wonderland word play semantic heaven, dancing back and forth between meanings of obvious that you think will get you off the hook.

Except that, you cannot actually cite any examples of Bio changing meanings of the word. He gave you many definitions of the word "obvious" in hopes that you might see how many support his usage, and refute your own.

I've used a single defintiion of "obvious," from Dictionary.com, as cited, then provided elaborations to kindly facilitate your understanding ...

One does not "elaborate" on dictionary definitions, Professor. One uses them, as written. If anyone finds the definition as written too difficult (or imagines that others do) one USES A SIMPLER DICTIONARY... "Elaborating" on the definition can (& in your case, does) change the definition.

You're welcome to write your own dictionary, but if you do, you're not welcome to cite it as objective proof that a given word means what you claim it does.

and as you've admitted, you'll never quit, even though you don't really read the posts

I believe Bio has admitted that he'll respond to every post you make on this thread. That is, he will quit... ...if you ever do. (though he's also hoping you never do, as you dig yourself deeper with every word, and we love the daily laugh.)

So, again, all the references to "clear," "obvious," and "seems" are completely relevant to your legerdemain.

Well... All references except those to your own usage of "obvious", you mean...

nutjob.

Anonymous said...

I'm starting to feel like Amos (John C. Reilly) in Chicago over here. What's a brother gotta do to get a response?

"Cellophane, Mister Cellophane..."

John of the Dead said...

Crap, that was me. Cellophane of the Dead. Sorry.

Americaneocon said...

"Is it not possible that the word "seems" is implied in Bio's statement?"

I guess you got your feelings hurt so bad last time that you can't keep up with who said what, Reppy!! LOL!

I'm arguing that Dr. Bionihilistwordsmithian should have qualified his use of "obvious."

Since someone else's beliefs logically can't be "obvious" to all, as we've used our agreed-upon definition - i.e., self-evident - then Dr. Bionihilistworsmithian cannot credibly write a blog post making the statement he did.

QED.

Davis, Yglesias, and Sweet make reference to "obvious" as residing in an objective world, one that calls on Wright to be denounced, but all of you guys over here just embrace the hate.

That's the "change" you're really hoping for, right? A neo-totalitarian black liberationist purge of all the "greedy" conservatives who don't really care about the poor, because, well, they're conservative. Ahhh!!

God help us if your movement comes to power.

Brush up on your public opinion analysis, by the way. I did cite some actual research at my page: "The Radical Left's Denialism on Iraq Public Opinion."

Greenwald's no help, naturally.

Doctor Biobrain said...

And the hits keep coming. You just can’t discuss arguments, can you? It’s all about attacking me. Even your occasional references to my arguments are only made as an excuse to attack me personally.

And your “Texas teacher’s college” analogy is just lousy. Look, I was fine with using Webster’s definition of the word and you’re the one who has to keep inventing your own definitions. A better analogy would be a crazy homeless guy who stands next to Harvard and insists that his diplomas made of excrement are better than the ones Harvard gives because they were made of his own excrement; and yes, you’d be that crazy homeless guy.

Beyond that, while there are objective criteria people use to judge the quality of a university, you still haven’t provided me with the Donald Fouglas Hierarchy of Dictionaries, which lists which dictionary is more authoritative than all the others. It seems from this laymen’s view that your favorite dictionary is yourself, because you don’t trust any of them.

And I have no idea what your “any use of "obvious" that makes reference to the external validity of the term” is supposed to mean. How have I made reference to the external validity of the term? That sounded like gibberish to me. But taken literally, I can state emphatically that my use of the term “obvious” had no reference to the external validity of the term “obvious.” If you want, you can explain better what you mean, or you can just insult me a bunch for not being able to comprehend your gibberish.

As for Lanny Davis, sorry, but your whole point was that Lanny had “the same useage” that I did. And now you’ve completely changed the point of all that, and it now sounds like you think he used the word “clear” properly because you agree with his conclusions which weren’t based upon that word. Geez, it’s like even YOU can’t even follow your own arguments.

And the point on Lynn Sweet is yet another absurdity. As I’ve said before, it’s not enough for you to show that other people use the word differently than I do. You have to show that it can NEVER be used as I did. And you can’t do that, especially as I’ve already shown how you use the word as I did; a point you continue to ignore for obvious reasons.

And look, would you really like to take this back to me defending Obama and Wright? I have no problem with that and it’d be a lot more germane to this post. This whole business about attacking my usage of one word was just dumb. It just sounds like you keep focusing on this ONE WORD, while your real point is about the Obama-Wright thing. But as we both know, even that’s not the point. The real point is you attacking me. But at least discussing Obama and Wright would be more relevant.

And what is the deal with your inability to quote things properly? First off, there is NO DEFINITION that says “obvious” means “self-evident.” I will remind you yet again that you invented that. And Hyperdictionary NEVER SAID the word meant "perceptable to the mind.” That’s another invention of yours. What they said was “easily perceived by the senses or grasped by the mind.” And I am convinced that it’s easy for people to grasp with their minds that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor.

And I’m willing to accept your paperback version of Webster’s “New World Dictionary,” which you said means “easy to understand.” Opinions can be quite easy to understand. Or I will accept your “Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary” which said it means “Easily discovered, seen, or understood,” as I think opinions can be easily understood. But what I WON’T accept are your invented definitions. Or as you describe them, your “elaborations” of the word.

And Donald, do you really think it helps your case when you continue to invent definitions? Really? How?

And as a reminder because you brought it up, the “Bush Invented Terrorism” title of that post was always a joke and I said that from the start. With that title, I was mocking conservatives who created that strawman and the point of the post was denouncing conservatives who use that strawman. The title of the post was an example of irony. But I suppose irony is yet another concept you’re incapable of understanding, along with sarcasm and mockery.

But in your little world, everything I’ve just written was trickery and lies. Why? Because you’re a post-modernist who insists that life can only be what you want it to be. So you invent definitions and rules of debate that other people find indecipherable, and then continue to insult people until they finally give up and allow you to reside safely into your little world. But because insults don’t bother me, I refuse to let you off the hook and so you have to go increasingly into your little post-modernist world in seek of refuge from the big, bad liberal blogger.

Oh, but one more reference to me acting like a polecat might be all it takes for me to give you that much needed concession. Just try it and I might succumb to such superior argumentation.

Americaneocon said...

"And I have no idea what your “any use of "obvious" that makes reference to the external validity of the term” is supposed to mean..."

That's why I'm a professor, and you're, well, I don't know what you are.

What are you, Reppy?!!

LOL!!

More cowbell, though, er, I mean, "Donnie"!!!

ROFLMFAO!!!

Doctor Biobrain said...

Wow, so you decided to insult me rather than explain that bit of gibberish? How surprising.

And btw, you know that I'm a CPA just as much as I know that you're a professor. Besides, I thought professors were supposed to explain things to people. You, on the other hand, just state assertions and if people don't agree with you, you insult them. How educational.

But just to help you understand what you're supposed to explain, can you explain how my use of the word "obvious" made reference to the external validity of the term? Because that just doesn't make any sense to me at all. I suspect you just wrote that wrong, as I think I understand what you were trying to say, but those specific words make no sense.

And were you really going to ignore everything else I wrote? Hell, you didn't even say I acted like a polecat! Nor did you wrongly assert that I accepted your invented definitions. But...I read the whole thing instead of skimming it like I normally do, so I guess you've got that going for you.

Americaneocon said...

Sorry, Dr. Bionihilistwordsmithian:

I'm not doing your homework for you. If you don't know what "tautology" means, I'm certainly not go to help you with internal/external validity.

I've got you down like a slimy, stinking polecat, and it's you who's squirming in denial!

And keep in mind:

"There are a number of logical fallacies and rhetorical ploys that frequently pop up when dealing with someone in denial. People in denial may believe they are engaging in substantive arguments and presenting their case, but when examined, the grounds they present are actually examples of pseudo-reasoning."

Yep, that about covers it!

Calling Dr. Sanity, ahhh!!

ROFLMFAO!!!

Dr. Biolameinsultsareclever said...

So that's it, then? I ask for you to explain what the hell you could have meant, and the best I get is yet another insult. And why not explain yourself? What's the point of debating somebody if you say things they can't understand and refuse to explain any of it?

Besides, I'm quite positive that the reason I don't understand what you wrote was because it was entirely meaningless. Even YOU don't understand what you wrote. And the fact that you won't defend what you wrote is even more confirmation of that. But then again, you never really defend yourself. It's all just more insults and attacks against me.

And no, there was no tautology when I said it was obvious that Obama didn't agree with his pastor. And I based my opinion on the things Obama said, including when he explictly stated that he didn't agree with his pastor. How is that a tautology? And why am I even asking, when all you're going to do is insult me again without giving any answer?

And I fail to understand why you keep quoting this Dr. Sanity person. Especially as it definitely sounds like you're the one being described. In this post, all you did was insult me. Oh, but your polecat reference was pretty convincing. It really is the best argument you've got.

John of the Dead said...

Hell, he can't defend anything he's written is this entire exchange. I've challenged him on multiple points, and he has run away like a coward repeatedly. It's readily apparent (note: did not use "obvious") that he cannot defend any of the statements he's made, much less meet any of my challenges. So, he's either stupid or a coward. Maybe both. Either way, he fucks goats - unless he has evidence that he doesn't.

repsac3 said...

I guess you got your feelings hurt so bad last time that you can't keep up with who said what, Reppy!! LOL!

What in God's name are you talking about, Donnie? As I've explained, it isn't possible for you to hurt my feelings, as I don't take you the least bit seriously.

As for who said what, it seemed pretty clear who I was quoting...

I'm arguing that Dr. Bionihilistwordsmithian should have qualified his use of "obvious."

and I'm pointing out that the qualification (the word "seems", or the words "to me" following "obvious"), while implied, was should've been clear to anyone who speaks & understands the English language.

Since someone else's beliefs logically can't be "obvious" to all, as we've used our agreed-upon definition - i.e., self-evident - then Dr. Bionihilistworsmithian cannot credibly write a blog post making the statement he did.

That's what we keep trying to explain to you, dumbass. They don't have to be obvious to all... Based on Bio's observation of Obama & of Rev Wright, they are obvious TO HIM. What's obvious TO HIM needn't be obvious to you or to anyone else. And as long as they're obvious TO HIM, he is free to write a post saying so, and that post is just as credible as anything you've ever written.

Davis, Yglesias, and Sweet make reference to "obvious" as residing in an objective world, one that calls on Wright to be denounced, but all of you guys over here just embrace the hate.

Some obvious things do reside in an objective world. Some don't. (And despite all your blather to the contrary, there is no definition of the word "obvious" that requires that the noun described by the adjective "obvious" be objective fact, rather than subjective opinion.)

All your whining about hate is more subjective opinion. (Opinion which to you seems obvious, I'm sure.)

God help us if your movement comes to power.

There will be little help for you when it does... (just as now, come to think of it...)

What are you, Reppy?!!

Do you even know know who the fuck you're talking to? You're answering Bio, and calling him Reppy. Add that to the fact that it wasn't all that long ago you were convinced that Bio & John were the same person, and it's easy to see why you lose so many arguments. Donnie, m'boy, you're a gone off the deep end drowning polecat.

John of the Dead said...

Donnie, m'boy, you're a gone off the deep end drowning polecat.

No no no! He's like a gone off the deep end drowning polecat.

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biowordsmithian:

You're back to your regular prevarications, I see.

You're just all protest, you know, but it's not helping you make the sale.

We're agreed on definitions, so that should be settled. I've used "obvious" consistently all along, with some added elaborations, to which you protested. But you can't protest to that, since by your own rules against extreme parsing, it's perfectly acceptable to clarify the usage of words under discussion.

So we're agreed.

But then there's this:

"I don't understand what you wrote was because it was entirely meaningless. Even YOU don't understand what you wrote."

Nice try...

As for "obvious," it's a word that cannot be used without reference to some external situation, like when Yglesias refers to the "obvious" facts of initial violence in Iraq amid the insurgency.

Lynn Sweet adheres to this logic, for in her use of obvious, she qualifies her deployment of obvious with the intransitive verb "seems." This is necessary for the facilitation of intersubjective communication.

So, for your to stick to an internally inconsistent usage makes no sense.

And all you can do is protest:

"You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and think your little logical tricks can undermine me long enough for me to tire of your endless insults."

The logical "tricks" you yourself deploy actually have undermined your whole project.

So you just deny and evade, right here, for example:

"As for the Yglesias thing, that’s entirely stupid."

That's classic, and Dr. Sanity's desribes this as "Minimizing or Discounting":

"In this type of denial, a person may actually admit to denial or acknowledge the problem; but his attitude is basically, "what's the big deal?"

But you don't stop there, with your nihilist denialism. Nope you go on all the way with this:

------>

"This whole business about attacking my usage of one word was just dumb. It just sounds like you keep focusing on this ONE WORD, while your real point is about the Obama-Wright thing. But as we both know, even that’s not the point. The real point is you attacking me. But at least discussing Obama and Wright would be more relevant."

<------

Well, yeah, I am attacking you. I've pinned you down to on your word usage, but that's just a part of my larger repudiation of your complete endorsement of the Wright America-bashing.

I mean, you come right out and say it, that I've "been saying the same stuff," and that "any liberal who isn't saying this stuff doesn't deserve to call themselves a liberal."

So, I can only imagine, when you're out to happy hour with your bio-anti-American hordes, or whatever, you're saying that, "We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," and that, "America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

Or, "Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."

And you endorse this, when you say, above, "This stuff is just a no-brainer."

So, yes, pinning you down on "obvious" is the preliminary to proving your ultimate hypocrisy, because if you're saying that it's "obvious" that Obama believe differently than Wright, but that you can't be a liberal unless you endorse the Wright black liberation hatred, why would you support Obama? Indeed, why would you even want to be a delegate with a candidate who's not down 'wid the brothers, man?! Down with the tyranny, yo! Rage against the machine ... no, no, no, "God Damn America."

You're all hypocrisy, Dr. Biopostmoderndenialism.

You should see a real doctor to get some Viagra for your gray-matter intellectual dysfunction.

Get that prescription, and then we'll debate.

Dr. Viagrabrain said...

Wait, so because I don’t like extreme parsing, you’re allowed to redefine my words so that my perfectly normal usage becomes improper? How odd. If anything, I could imagine that I would be allowed to elaborate better on what I meant, seeing as how I was the one making the statement; but it seems really odd that you’d be the one who could redefine MY words to make them no longer appropriate. Might you someday be publishing the Donald Fouglas Rules of Debate so all of us can understand them, or do they change too frequently to be put into a formal work?

And again, if it’s possible to “parse” a single word, I think you making the word more narrow than what is in any dictionary would be taking it to the extreme. It’s one thing to elaborate by expanding upon the dictionary definition, though I’m sure you’d try to skewer me if I did that; but it’s another thing to make the word more limited than what any dictionary says. I’m quite sure I’ve never seen anyone attempt such an absurd thing in a debate. I’ve had people limit it to the dictionary definition, but never limiting it beyond the dictionary. That’s what’s so fun in debating you, Don. You really take hackery to the next level.

And why do you keep insisting that we’ve agreed upon the definition, when it’s obvious we won’t as long as you keep using your own inventions? And again, I’ve shown repeatedly that you use the word the same way I do, but you have to stay in denial on this point and pretend it isn’t true. How sad.

And can you please explain why the word “obvious” has to reference “some external situation?” I’m still confused as to what you actually mean. Besides, isn’t me quoting Obama count as “external?” I have an opinion based upon what Obama has said, and to me it’s “obvious” that this opinion of him is the correct one. Similarly, you have external reasons for thinking that opinion is wrong; for example, because Obama continued going to that church is a reason you think Obama agrees with what his pastor said.

I should state again that I still don’t quite understand what this “external” nonsense is about, but do appreciate that you finally bothered explaining yourself instead of just repeating your insults. I really think you’d find you’d get a lot further if you bothered explaining what you meant instead of insulting everyone who disagrees with you. Believe it or not, it’s not “denial” just because someone disagrees with you. Sorry dude, but you’re not God. You have to explain your points just like everybody else. And I honestly think you’d understand me better if you bothered asking me what I meant, instead of telling me what you think I meant.


Now getting onto a better debate subject: Defending Wright

As for what I wrote about Wright, I only meant that I agreed with what was in the two clips I watched. And I think I made that clear in the post and that none of my readers assumed I meant that I agreed with everything Wright has ever said, including the stuff I hadn’t heard. I’m not sure why you have such problems with reading comprehension, but I suspect it’s your hatred of me that makes you misread everything I write. But again, I was only referring to the two sermons I mentioned. I’d have to watch any other sermon to determine if I agreed with them, and refuse to base any decision on something taken out of context.

Thus said, even the quote you gave had some truth there. For example, whether there are more black men in prison than in college is a debatable point. And do you deny that we export guns? Do you deny that we’ve trained professional killers? Any denial that we killed women and children in Cambodia and Iraq (I’m not really knowledgeable on Nicaragua, so I don’t know if we bombed there). I don’t agree with the No.1 killer line, or that we import drugs or put Mandela in prison (though we surely could have done more to end apartheid). And without a doubt, we do have too many white supremacists, though I don’t think the government is overall.

But no, just because I said I agreed with what he said in these two clips doesn’t mean that I agree with everything he’s ever said. Don’t be stupid. That’s what’s weird, is that you often seem like you might be a smart guy, but then you fall victim to these HORRIBLE points that completely undermine everything you’re trying to say. It’s like you’re so overwhelmed with your dislike of liberals that you absolutely refuse to bother understanding anything we write.

But getting back to the point, did you watch the clip I posted here? Do you think that God ever supported slavery? Do you think God was ever a god of injustice? Do you think God changes? Because that’s the kind of stuff in the clip. And as I said, I’m an agnostic, so the god stuff wasn’t really my thing, but I still understand what he said and think most Christians should agree with it. That’s what I was talking about when I said I agreed with him.

And as I said in the post, the main point of his sermon was to insist that God is superior to America, which is something many, many conservatives believe. In fact, that’s what the bible says too. And he even says that, saying “God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is supreme.” And again, that’s an attitude many Christians have; including many of McCain’s buddies. I personally don’t agree with that, being agnostic, but I understand the mentality.

But I’m not sure why I bother. You don’t want to understand any of this. All you want is a reason to hate Wright and myself, you’ve found your reason, and that’s good enough for you. You don’t care what any liberals say; you just hate us. I don’t care if you agree with me, but anyone who can’t understand my point is just being intentionally obtuse. I explain myself far more than should be necessary, and if you still think this is all just spin and denials, it’s just because you’re in spinning denial.

But like that should be a surprise, seeing as how you believe you can redefine my words into meaning anything you want them to mean. While I’d never suggest that you were a nihilist, because I actually know what that word means, it’s obvious that you’re a HUGE post-modernist. I guess it’s a West Coast thing.

repsac3 said...

Lonesome Polecat

Donald Douglas said...

Dr. Biodenialmaster:

You're just like a slinky hamster on a caged wheel, spinning and spinning out your twisted evasions and distortions, adding up your comment count to fan some not-so-well deserved megalomaniacal demand for self-flagellatory gratification.

Where to begin, whew?

Your last post is the epitome of denialism and projection, with more whacked bio-wordsmithianism mixed in for good measure!

You say:

Begin Quote----->

"Wait, so because I don’t like extreme parsing, you’re allowed to redefine my words so that my perfectly normal usage becomes improper?...

Might you someday be publishing the Donald Fouglas Rules of Debate so all of us can understand them, or do they change too frequently to be put into a formal work?"

<-------End Quote

You conveniently forget that it's your own rules against parsing. You ridicule me for developing some imaginary rules of debate so that you can take the pressure off your own evasion and hypocrisy. That's weak.

I've called you on it so many times now you're going crazy with confusion, like that web of lies you've been caught in all along, like Wilber in Charlotte's Web, you're just endlessly entranced with the spin, spin, spin!!

But let's be clear about something: I'm not parsing anything, I'm just making you use the meaning of a word consistently.

I've repeatedly set out the basic definition of obvious, usually from Dictionary.com, simply because it's seems authoritative, and gibes with hard-copy definitions from the most widely acceptable dictionary in the English language, Webster's, of which I've also cited a couple of times.

Obvious, to use these sources, is "easily discovered, seen, or understood; plain, evident..."

And that's not elaborating or offering synonyms.

If you're half the scholar you think you are, you'll have a copy of Webster's around your house, hovel, or wherever it is that nihilists of your sort set up anti-American shops.

And I do use nihilist correctly. But since you've again deployed the red herring of "you don't even know it means" scam again, let's be clear: In the philosophical sense, it's the "denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth."

That's how I'm using it, for while you prance around acting like some rational being, any time a key principle of logic or scientific inference is offered here, you either are clueless on the meaning (i.e., circulus in demonstrando) or the conceptual application (external validity).

In response, you resort to ad hominems, insults and name-calling, plausible strategies of denial, table-turning, and, frankly, psychiatric projection.

Note that nihilism is just basic to postmodern conceptions of knowledge, which explains your refusal to accept any explanation or fact that differs or disproves your own whacked take on things, which is consistent with research and ideas in history, sociology, and economics that rejects notions of truth and falsification.

That's what you do, man! Endlessly, duh!!

As I've said before, I'll admit when I'm wrong. Not only that, last summer you almost had me persuaded with your little ploy of "opinion versus fact," that is, until I applied the same logic to your own arguments and you said the case didn't apply to you - and you were the one demanding an authoritative substantiation based the logics of courtroom legalization.

You just want to have it any way you want.

There are no standards, hence you adopt a nihilist agenda of constant obscurantism and delay, to string out a system of projections and denials so you'll never ever have to admit that, fundamentally, you're a fluke, a mountebank, a total quack!!

In any case, check Dictionary.com for the usage on "obvious," which as we'd agreed, before you started backtracking, means evident and apparent to all.

Thus, it's logically impossible for Obama's views to be obvious in the way you've demanded. Yglesias and Sweet use the term correctly, to refer to some objective standard of substantiation, that's available for validation, replication, and authorization. In other words, what's obvious is open to all, not hidden away inside the mind, like you want it to be with Obama.

But fine, you're rejecting your own rule on parsing. Hey, you're rule-master, neo-nihilist bio-wordmaster-of-disaster, so I'm hip.

Let's go with your own definition from "Hypodictionary," remember that whacked out tied-off freak show dictionary that you've insisted on using to support your demonic hegemonic dismantling of any objective reality.

Well, it says objective is:

------>

"obvious to the eye or mind ... easily perceived or understood; easily perceived by the senses or grasped by the mind; 'a perceptible sense of expectation in the court'; 'an obvious (or palpable) lie'"

Now, I edited some of the examples, but if you want to bring them back in that's fine with me, as they all illustrate my case.

But take that last example of a "palpable lie." That which is palpable is "capable of being perceived by the senses or the mind."

For something to be perceived, of course, requires an external stimulus. It can't be just a thought, or self-perception, because then the idea wouldn't be open to substantiation in terms of an OBJECTIVE REALITY!! That sensory perception would be totally SUBJECTIVE, and hence internal, and in terms of the semantics of "obvious," such a usage, as you are trying to establish, makes no logical sense.

Does that sink in at all?

Even by your own definition - from rope-a-doped, tied-off hypodermic dictionary - you're still pinned.

And note too: There's no elaboration here, no use of synonyms. This is using language as you've required under your own set of rules.

No wonder you want to get on to defend Wright, because, well, you think he's right. "GOD DAMN AMERICA."

Oh that's just great...

In any case, this should satisfy you, so you can't go on like this:

----->

"And why do you keep insisting that we’ve agreed upon the definition, when it’s obvious we won’t as long as you keep using your own inventions? And again, I’ve shown repeatedly that you use the word the same way I do, but you have to stay in denial on this point and pretend it isn’t true. How sad."

<-----

What's sad is your continual efforts to shift the burden. It's a logical fallacy, of course, so it's surprising that you'd keep deploying a ruse that makes your illogics so clear, because the
burden of proof lies with the propagator of a thesis, which is you and your use of "obvious," which demands external validation, or it can't be used, if one hopes at the same time to establish some intersubjective legitimacy. It's just not possible. If a proposing antagonist fails to provide sufficient support for an argument, the burden of proof dictates he should lose the debate. And that's you, which is why the more you try to smuggle my own usages in, when I've never mentioned any of my own examples, it essentially means you've conceded victory to me.

A debate judge would tell you this, but since you've only got three or four, readers here, including fellow nihilists Reppy, and "John of the Dead" (who disagrees with your logic too, but is mad because he's made you, a fellow nihilist look bad).

But not only do you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper, your denialism's gotten to the point of projection:

"Denying responsibility for one's own behavior and projecting responsibility onto someone else. The behavior itself is not denied, but someone else is to "blame" for causing it--not the person who acted."

That's what you do all the time, but of course, I've already shown this many times.

Note too, that as soon as I've given descriptions of your denial and evasions, and your refusal to remain in a common world of mutual understandings and usages, and your continued rule-making and rule-breaking, then blaming it on me in a projectory cycle shows a manifest disaster for your credibility.

You're a quack, Dr. Biodenialism.

Here's an example:

"While I’d never suggest that you were a nihilist, because I actually know what that word means, it’s obvious that you’re a HUGE post-modernist."

Well, I'd like to see your definition ... you fit perfectly the denialist anti-rational postmodernist I've laid out all along.

Forget defending Wright, by the way. I watched and read the speech, and he's just as deluded as you are in defending it.

And if you're skimming this far go back and read this post again, because I've finished you off for good!!

John of the Dead said...

I'm still waiting for objective, verifiable proof that Rev Wright hates America. When will you be providing that, goat fucker?

repsac3 said...

In any case, check Dictionary.com for the usage on "obvious," which as we'd agreed, before you started backtracking, means evident and apparent to all.

Of course, the words "to all" do not actually appear in any of the definitions at dictionary.com. obvious - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Donnie's "elaborating" again.

Let's try HyperDictionary (which Donnie can't seem to spell, apparently) OBVIOUS - Definition

Nope, still no requirement that any obvious thing must be obvious TO ALL, or must be describing objective reality as opposed to subjective opinion.

Still "elaborating"...

For something to be perceived, of course, requires an external stimulus.

The external stimulus is Obama's words & deeds, as perceived by Bio.

It can't be just a thought, or self-perception, because then the idea wouldn't be open to substantiation in terms of an OBJECTIVE REALITY!!

And the definition of "obvious" that says anything about requiring "substantiation" or "objective reality" is where, exactly?

"Elaboration"

And note too: There's no elaboration here, no use of synonyms. This is using language as you've required under your own set of rules.

False, as shown above. The language required is the language in any dictionary definition of the word, without addition, or elaboration. That means, find a dictionary that includes "to all," "substantiation," &/or "objective reality, not subjective opinion," or admit that you cannot, & thus are still "elaborating" in the interest of proving your point.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Regarding your usage of Dictionary.com’s definition, I have already accepted that definition and insist that it shows that I used the word properly. “Easily understood” is one of the meanings they gave, and I’ve already accepted that one. It is easy for people to understand that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor because he says he doesn’t agree with his pastor. As long as we’re not including your “elaborations,” I’m fine with that definition.

But of course, you KNOW that I already accepted that definition, because you QUOTED me saying that. But then you went into the absurd and demanded that I give a “measurement of the data point” on this. And that was absurd because there is no way to measure Obama’s statements. You either accept them as true, as I do, or you deny that they’re true, as you do. But there’s no fricking measurement. But I don’t think you meant that at all. You were just tossing out yet another rhetorical trick in hopes that you could confuse me into submission.

Regarding you calling me a nihilist, that’s surely absurd. But since you insist that people have to prove their claims, can you please provide proof that I’m a nihilist? I mean specific examples, so don’t give me a “everything you’ve written” BS. Because I can assure you that I’m not a nihilist. I most certainly DO believe that there is an objective basis in truth and all my arguments are based upon the idea that we can know truth. If anything, you’re the confused one here because you think that opinions can be truth. Frankly, I’d be surprised if there are ANY people who actually fit that definition of “nihilist.” Even the ones who say there isn’t objective reality don’t really mean it; they’re just dopes who have read too many philosophy books and imagine it makes them sound smart to repeat such bullshit. But I can assure you that I believe in objective reality and that you can’t possibly have any evidence to the contrary.

And when did I say that my own logic didn’t apply to me? I remember you completely misinterpreting everything I said and using an absurd basis for logic that you imagined I was making, but I don’t ever remember saying that logic doesn’t apply. Besides, YOU’RE the one with your own rules of debate. I just use the normal ones. But if I remember right, you were pissed because I had just routed you, and you started playing rhetorical games as a gimmick that you pretended was mine. But if I remember right, I was just arguing by definition, which is one of the most basic logical arguments to make. I still don’t understand why you imagined that I had invented that technique.

And once again, your citation of people using “obvious” in ways that I didn’t is entirely pointless. Words can mean more than one thing. As I’ve stated before, if I called you an ass, you wouldn’t assume I meant you were a sure-footed mammal. But I’m glad that you finally stopped citing Lanny Davis as part of this point, as that completely undermined your point and embarrassed you.

And what is this “not hidden away inside the mind” stuff you are chattering on about? My opinion of Obama is based upon statements that he has made which are “open to all.” Everyone can hear him say these things, even you. And they can choose to believe them, as I have, or they can choose to disbelieve them, as you have. But the basis for these opinions aren’t in my mind. The only difference between my basis and Yglesias’ is that his are based upon provable facts, while mine are based upon Obama’s statements. And Obama’s statements can’t be used as empirical facts…as I’ve explained to you repeatedly.

And as for Hyperdictionary (which you continue to insult for reasons I can’t fathom), I agree, a “perceptible sense of expectation” requires external stimulus; for example, hearing people in the courtroom gasp. But all the same, the sense of expectation would be opinion, not factual. Someone else might hear the same external stimulus and think it was unimportant. Similarly, I can HEAR Obama say that he disagrees with his pastor, and from that, form the opinion that it’s true. See how that works? See the “external” stimulus that helped form the opinion? Does THAT sink in at all?

Please read that last paragraph again, as I’m quite sure this addresses your point and you really need to stop embarrassing yourself on this one.

And by the way, when I mention the fact that you used the word “obvious” on your blog the same way that I use it, that isn’t burden shifting. I’m not asking you to defend using the word. I’m pointing out that you use it the same way I do, which proves that you don’t use it the way you pretend you use it. And I’ve already explained this. This isn’t burden shifting. I’m using your words the same way you use Yglesias’; as an example of how the word is used. So will you ever acknowledge that you used the word the same way I did? Or will you keep denying this fact?

And finally, I’m sorry, but we keep going round and round this too many times. It’s obvious that you’re either the dumbest fucking person in academia or you’re just skimming my comments. Because I can’t understand how you can keep attacking me on points I’ve addressed last week. And I don’t blame you. My comments are so fucking long that even *I* wouldn’t want to read them. But it’s necessary to address all the points I think I need to address.

And look, you don’t have to admit to that if you don’t want to. But for god’s sake, if you’re going to pretend that you’re reading everything I write, you better damn well read everything I write. I can’t believe how many times you act like you’ve finally got me cornered regarding points I already addressed repeatedly. Even your use of Hyperdictionary now just recalls what my original point for bringing it up was. As is your usage of Dictionary.com’s definition, which I not only used repeatedly, but which you QUOTED me using.

And Donald, this all just comes down to nothing. This was ONE WORD, and I used it just as you use it. And it wasn’t even important to my point. Yet you continue to flog this one word as if your life depended on it. But it’s not important. The truth is that I’m a decent, honest guy who happens to be one of the most solid informal debaters you’ll ever meet and you continue to get your ass handed to you in every comment. But again, this isn’t my fault. I’m not trying to drive some point home. I’m just defending myself against someone I’ve driven insane with my rationality. I could understand if this was some important point. But it’s not. It was ONE WORD, and I used it just as you use it.

Now why don’t you move on to my post on Arthur C. Brooks’ book which you attempted to use to refute yet another nonpoint I had made. You like the book, while I think I conclusively showed how it was bogus. That’d be something worth debating. But you still trying to force some non-issue out of this one word is just a waste of a good debate. I love debating, so I’ll debate you on anything…as I’ve clearly shown with this lame debate. But if we’re going to debate, I’d prefer it to be on something I cared about, instead of a single non-important word.

But I get the impression you don’t really like those kinds of debates, as you only seem to attack me for non-important things, while ignoring the big stuff. How about you prove me wrong by showing how all that stuff I said about your beloved Brooks was wrong. But just to help you out, I strongly recommend that you try to understand my point BEFORE you start criticizing it, instead of burying yourself deep like you’ve done in the past and have to keep playing games to stay afloat. Who knows, maybe I was wrong about what I wrote.

Americaneocon said...

"Now why don’t you move on to my post on Arthur C. Brooks’ book which you attempted to use to refute yet another nonpoint I had made...


Who knows, maybe I was wrong about what I wrote."

Is that a concession?

You've avoided the substance of my post to again quibble over definitions.

I'll move on to Brooks' argument as soon as you make a formal concession here.

You're almost there, Dr. Biobrain...

John of the Dead said...

"Who knows, maybe I was wrong about what I wrote."

Is that a concession?


Why am I not surprised that you've failed reading comprehension? Again. He's inviting you to try to debate a post on its merits, rather than trying (and failing, I might add) to snipe at an inconsequential side-point. See the sentences at the beginning of the paragraph?

But I get the impression you don’t really like those kinds of debates, as you only seem to attack me for non-important things, while ignoring the big stuff. How about you prove me wrong by showing how all that stuff I said about your beloved Brooks was wrong.

Wow, you really, really suck at this. I can only assume that you do not assign any essays in you classes, because your reading comprehension is abysmal.

Americaneocon said...

"John of the Dead" says:

"Why am I not surprised that you've failed reading comprehension?"

Actually, I've been going easy on Dr. Bionihilist. For example, this sentence is a question:

"Now why don’t you move on to my post on Arthur C. Brooks’ book which you attempted to use to refute yet another nonpoint I had made..."

Needs a question mark on the end...

I've made a few typos, sure, and I noticed an incomplete sentence or two in my posts, but it is reasonable to ask if Dr. Biodenialist is indeed ready to be done with it, now that I've pinned him to the mat, and the referee has slapped the floor signaling the end to the match.

I've made the case, so it looks like he's preparing an honorable concession. Saving face, you know?

And all can do is insult and slur? You really are mad, "John."

I would be mad too, if my friendly fire helped the other side! LOL!!

repsac3 said...

Donnie word of the day: denialist

John of the Dead said...

I love the irony of your failure to comprehend a comment explaining your failure of reading comprehension, while simultaneously demanding a concession to an argument you've lost, and ALSO continuing to ignore my direct challenge to you, namely, your failure to prove via objective, verifiable evidence Rev Wright's hatred of America.

Oh, sorry. That's a compound/complex sentence. Do I need to dumb that down for you?

Still waiting for that proof. Your lack of it, for DAYS, certainly strikes me as an implicit concession. So, I take it that, given your failure to prove Rev Wright's hatred of America, you'll drop that point, yes? That's good to know. Perhaps now you can move along to losing the debate on conservative "largess."

Doctor Biobrain said...

Yes Donnie, I'm completely conceding that my post against Brooks was wrong before you've even said anything against what I wrote. And because I know you lack a sense of irony, yes, that was sarcasm. Don't be a douchebag.

Look, I'm just trying to let you off the hook. You raised an absolutely inane point about me incorrectly using one word, and I'm willing to let it go and debate something legitimate. I can keep this debate going forever, but would prefer to discuss a real issue. Hell, we could even turn it into a legitimate blog debate, so that we could debate a true liberal v. conservative issue; rather than this stupid semantics debate you created. Of course, we’d want to limit how long our debate would go, as I don’t want my blog taken over by a debate with you; but I’d much rather turn these into blog material instead of hiding them away in a comment. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I really don’t post very often and would prefer to use these debates as blog material.

And how am I quibbling over definitions? I accepted two different definitions you cited from paper versions of Webster's, and was willing to accept other dictionaries. You're the one quibbling because you feared I was right, so you have to keep playing games and trying to force me to accept invented definitions. But I was fine with any of the real definitions. Now, if you don't want to quibble over definitions, just admit that you'll accept the definition you gave from your dictionary and we can move on. You had a horrible point to begin with and you've embarrassed yourself with every comment.

And no, I would never concede this argument in a million years, because I'm totally right. The dictionary supports my point. Your blog supports my point. Commonsense supports my point. The only thing that doesn't support my point is you, and you're just insisting that I'm wrong because you're obsessed with finally proving me wrong on something. But I’m not a post-modernist and understand that truth is independent of our perceptions. That’s how I know that I’ve won this debate and have never needed your concession.

But again, I’m willing to let you off the hook because this debate is so lame and I’d prefer to kick your butt in a real debate. But if you’re going to be a douchebag about it, we can keep at this forever. I was just trying to be nice. As I’ve said repeatedly, I’ve never been trying to embarrass you in this debate. I’m just defending myself against an absurd attack, while you’re the one who keeps adopting these stupid points as your only way to attack me.

The fact that you continue to avoid debating any real points, including my first mention of my Brooks post, is evidence that you can’t actually debate real points, but can only work in the realm of debates on opinions and logical gimmicks. So do you want a real debate, or will we continue with this one forever? Again, I can summarize my points on Brooks into a concise post which we can use as the beginning of a debate on his book, or…we can keep debating the meaning of the word “obvious.” Your choice.

And btw, Donald. Regarding what you wrote to John, reading comprehension has nothing to do with proof-reading. Reading comprehension has to do with the ability to understand what somebody wrote; not about noticing that they left out a question mark, which is in the realm of proof-reading. A computer can proof-read, but won't understand what it's reading. John clearly understood what I was saying, while you continue to play silly games and pretending that statements which couldn't possibly be concessions are concessions. Whether my sentence really needed a question mark is debatable; but your inability to comprehend basic concepts is not. If you don't want people to think you're an idiot, you shouldn't act like one.

repsac3 said...

Donnie's pejorative of the day: Nihilist

Donald Douglas said...

"I can keep this debate going forever, but would prefer to discuss a real issue."

Ah, this is a real issue... Hello?

If it wasn't you would have blown off this debate long ago as unimportant.

And you're defending, "John"?

"Reading comprehension has to do with the ability to understand what somebody wrote..."

You have credibility on this, because your smears about "you don't even know what it means" are closely related to reading comprehension as you're using it here.

*******

Besides that, you've got to love Jonah Goldberg today:

"Obama and his defenders have repeatedly insisted that the bits from Wright's sermons that got wide circulation last month had been taken "out of context." His infamous sound bites were grounded in concrete theological or factual foundations, they claim. He was quoting other people. He's done good things. Nothing to see here, folks.

And so God bless Wright because he's left all of these folks holding a giant, steaming bag of ... well, let's just call it a bag of "context."

Let's start with the news out of his speeches Sunday and Monday: Wright, Obama's mentor and former pastor, is worse than we thought. He's a bigot, at least by the standards usually reserved for white people such as former Harvard President Lawrence Summers or "The Bell Curve" author Charles Murray.

On Sunday in Detroit, he explained to 10,000 people at the Fight for Freedom Fund dinner of the NAACP -- an organization adept at taking offense at far less racist comments from nonblacks -- that whites have an inherent "left-brain cognitive, object-oriented learning style. Logical and analytical," while blacks "learn not from an object but from a subject. They are right-brain, subject-oriented in their learning style. That means creative and intuitive. The two worlds have different ways of learning."

Blacks even have better rhythm, Wright explained.

CNN carried the speech live, and news anchor Soledad O'Brien reported from the scene that it was "a home run."

Then, Monday morning at the National Press Club, Wright attempted to clear the air about all of the supposedly deceptive sound bites he's been reduced to.

So, does he stand by his "God damn America" statement?

Well, yeah. He explained that until American leaders apologize to Japan for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as to black Americans for slavery and racism, we will remain a damnable nation.

What about that bit about America's chickens coming home to roost on 9/11? Yep, we heard him right. "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it not to come back on you; those are biblical principles," he explained.

Asked whether he stood by his assertion that the U.S. government created HIV as part of a genocidal program to wipe out the black race, Wright mostly dodged but ultimately offered this nondenial denial: "I believe our government is capable of doing anything." He also offered a zesty defense of Louis Farrakhan -- "one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century" -- and dismissed criticism of Farrakhan as an anti-Semite.

To cap it off, Wright threw Obama under the bus. First, the pastor explained, Obama himself had taken Wright out of context. Moreover, Obama neither denounced nor distanced himself from Wright. And, besides, anything that Obama says on such matters is just stuff "politicians say." They "do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls." So much for Obama's new politics.

On Friday, Wright appeared on Bill Moyers' PBS TV show, in which Moyers all but shouted "Amen!" every time Wright took a breath. The impression viewers were supposed to take away: Wright is on the side of the angels, not like those "Swift-boating" crazies at Fox News.

But then Obama himself told "Fox News Sunday" that he considers Wright fair game -- as long as you don't quote him out of context.

It's a deal."

I'm sure you've got some line to try to blow Goldberg out of the water, but even Obama's thrown Wright under the bus.

Like I've been calling for all along!

ROFLMFAO!!

You can quit now, and we'll move on to something else...like, nihilism!

Doctor Biobrain said...

Hey dumbass, the whole point of our debate was because I said it was obvious that Obama didn't agree with his pastor. So now you agree that he doesn't agree with Wright on this stuff? What's changed? You finally get marching orders from above telling you that it's true? Is it now “obvious,” or is that word still too precious for you to apply to this situation?

And no, this issue isn't important to me at all. It's a silly semantics debate you started because you couldn't find anything legitimate to attack me on. As I've said before, I just enjoy debating, and you're the first conservative I've really felt comfortable with knocking around, as you just seem ask for it. But this isn't my idea of an important subject; this is my idea of entertainment.

But it looks like I finally won this one anyway, as you’ve clearly stopped debating it. Did I finally use the proper codewords so that you could comprehend my point? I just needed to point out that Obama’s words were “external” to me, to show you that I had a basis for my opinion? Is that it? I guess regular language isn’t enough when debating a logical wiz like you, huh? I have to use your special codewords or you’ll never understand what I’m talking about.

And outsourcing your arguments to Goldberg, eh? Well I still see no reason to take back anything that I said. I suppose Wright was a bigger fruitcake than I had imagined, but I still agree with the two sermons I saw.

As for moving on to nihilism as a debate topic, I can't really call that an important subject, but definitely see how you'd prefer it over something real. You like these name-calling semantic debates that don't have any real "right or wrong" to them, and you even imagine that these ARE the real debates; mainly because you don't stand a chance in a real debate. You can just toss off some quotes from Dr. Sanity and imagine that you’ve made a point. How brilliant. Perhaps you can say my behavior is like a polecat too. That’s always very effective.

And btw, when I said that you didn't know what those words meant, that wasn't a smear. It’s obvious that you toss out words that you've picked up from context but don't really understand. Like when you cite "tautologies" that never existed. Or when you insist that all insults are examples of “argumentum ad hominem.” Or your current usage of "nihilist" to refer to me. Hell, you didn't even seem to know that a polecat was a skunk. These are all words that you read somewhere, but failed to really know how to use properly. Instead, you toss them out like cheap insults, while imagining yourself to be sophisticated for using them, and that they’re not insults. Well, keep telling yourself that, Donnie, because nobody else is buying it.

Americaneocon said...

"Hey dumbass..."

I'd say that refutes your case against “argumentum ad hominem” right there. LOL!!

Obama's throwing of Wright under the bus is a post hoc response, but don't take my word for it, here's Obama' own words (if these count for anything in your whacked, tied off postmodern non-real pseudo-reality, freak show, slimeball rally-like world):

"I constantly remember Rev. Wright as the shepherd who guided me to my commitment to Christ one Sunday morning at Trinity. I often consider, as I work in the Senate how he lives his life-a life of service to Trinity, Chicago and the nation; his activism on behalf of causes that few would champion and his dogged commitment to the first principles of love for God and fellow man. And in my personal walk, I seek daily to imitate his faith."

-- From, Gateway Pundit

So, don't be trying to wiggle out now. I've asserted all along Obama's been hip with it. Now that he'll likely lose in the fall he's throwing Wright under, M-FCKR!!

Doctor Biobrain said...

So, you still don’t know what ad hominem fallacies are and you’re proud of it. Jesus, you’re an idiot. Look, the reason ad hominem arguments are fallacies is because insults by themselves don’t disprove anything and aren’t legitimate rebuttals. So if I called you a “dumbass” or said that your behavior was “like a Texas-dragged polecat,” and I failed to address your arguments, I’d have committed an ad hominem fallacy because my personal attacks against you didn’t disprove your points.

But…if I call you a “dumbass” AND explain why you’re wrong, I can still prove my point with my arguments. The use of insults does NOT undermine arguments. And if Plato ended every one of his sentences with “dipshit” his arguments would still be as true as if he didn’t say “dipshit,” and they’d definitely be funnier. The insult doesn’t undermine the argument. It’s only a problem when insults are used as substitutes for arguments.

And what’s ironic is that your belief that my use of insults automatically undermines my arguments IS an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if you think my insults of you show that I have no integrity and therefore you don’t need to address my points, you’ve definitely committed an ad hominem fallacy. Because my arguments aren’t dependent upon my character or integrity and even people with no integrity can raise valid debate points. This isn’t about insults or non-insults; this is about the use of arguments to prove points, versus the use of personal attacks used instead of arguments. And as long as I give arguments refuting your points, I can call you a “dumbass” as much as I want and you still need to address my arguments, dumbass. I can’t believe I had to explain that to you again.

As for Obama and Wright, let me get this straight: When Obama said “I strongly disagree with many of his political views” and described Wright’s views as “divisive” in a famous speech, it was wrong for me to say it was “obvious” that he disagreed with the guy? But now it’s ok for you to state as fact that Obama threw Wright under the bus? How in the hell does that work. But don’t bother explaining anything. After all, I live in a non-real slimeball world, so you don’t need to defend your statements. Right?

My postmodernism clearly gives you the right to pick and choose which of his words I can believe. And that’s the same reason you can redefine my words to make them illogical. And I suppose if I lived in the real world like you, I could use Obama’s words to create irrefutable facts which can disprove your beliefs; just as you did with Bush’s words. Wow, that must be cool. Perhaps some day I’ll drop my nihilism so I can create facts, redefine words, and tell other people what statements they can believe. Hopefully, that was enough sarcasm for even you to understand.

And once again, your use of M-FCKER makes you sound like a nine year old who wants to cuss like the big boys but won’t because his mommy will punish him if she hears about it. Jesus christ Donnie, grow a pair. You’re a fucking adult; act like one. Stubbed toes, indeed.

Oh, and don’t mind as I laugh yet again at your implied concession. Not that I ever needed your concession to know that you were wrong, but the fact that you’ve completely given up on all of this, despite your belief in ping-pong debate rules which demand responses, is all the evidence I need to laugh my head off. Even by your invented rules you lose. Too funny.

repsac3 said...

And one point that my buddy Bio may not've made clear enough for you, Donnie, is that your quote of Gateway's quote of Obama doesn't actually refute (or indeed prove) anything.

Both Bio & I've been pretty clear in what we said at the beginning of this endless pingpong match to nowhere; when one listens to the whole sermons, two of the more "offensive" quotes make sense, and are not what they appear to be.

Neither of us has claimed any love or support for Wright in toto. Neither of us has said that EVERYTHING eminating out of his mouth is golden. We addressed two specific sermons, and said that we understand his words. Then we said that we don't believe Obama thinks the same things as Wright, anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

You've said nothing anywhere in your whole flurry of bullshit--including your last bit, quoting Obama expressing his respect for Wright's faith--to refute either point. It's obvious you've lost.

nutjob polecat.

John of the Dead said...

Point of order!

And what’s ironic is that your belief that my use of insults automatically undermines my arguments IS an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if you think my insults of you show that I have no integrity and therefore you don’t need to address my points, you’ve definitely committed an ad hominem fallacy.

That is not an ad hominem fallacy. It is a "Style Over Substance" fallacy, in which one argues against the way in which the argument is presented rather than the substance. The difference is subtle, but noteworthy. Sorry I don't have anything more on-topic to add, but this guy has lost so many times over that anything else would be double-redundant. Can we move along to beating him on a different topic, please?

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biodenialism wrote, above:

"I would never concede this argument in a million years, because I'm totally right. The dictionary supports my point. Your blog supports my point. Commonsense supports my point. The only thing that doesn't support my point is you, and you're just insisting that I'm wrong because you're obsessed with finally proving me wrong on something."

And you also said you're conceding my definitions from Webster's? Say what? Man, that's a good trick, to go back and forth, trying to throw me off, here and there, but it's not working, Mr. BioMcSquidly!

The Webster's definition are precisely the ones the put your notions of what Obama believes to shame.

If you persist on this point, I'll be fine to go back into the thread and pluck out your comments rejecting my views.

But now that we're agreed on basic definitions, and you concede that by definition it's impossible for an obvious phenomenon to be subjective, we can move on. It took me a while to claim victory, but I'll be gracioius in accepting it.

But look at that quote again, above. You are the Dr. Biowordsmithian!!

I wouldn't normally make corrections, because sometimes I'm lazy about proofreading adequately, but this is too much!!

There's no such word as "commonsense." You could break that up into two words, "common" and "sense" to make a phrase, "common sense," but since you don't have any, it would't suit you in any case.

In fact, you're whacked and totally FUBAR!!

I've shown it over and over, M-FCKR!!

What's your M-FCKN problem?!!

The real issue, of course, is your embrace of Wright's radicalism, which you conceded above, and on which you think you can prevail. But as I've shown repeatedly, everyone's thrown Wright under the bus for his ideo-religious extremism.

But you lefties just love it.

As Dean Barnett noted at the Weekly Standard:

"In some quarters of the left, even Reverend Wright's most hysterical pronouncements fail to register shock. Indeed, proclamations such as, "What we are doing is the same thing al Qaeda is doing under a different color flag," almost certainly trigger a chorus of approving "Harrumphs" in faculty lounges across the land. At Hollywood soirees, stars are probably heaving an enormous sigh of relief that someone has finally found the courage to speak truth to power.

Of course, most people in America find Wright's comments repugnant. Obama's efforts to distance himself from Wright and his labeling Wright's comments offensive provide evidence that Wright and his baggage are a political loser. But some on the left like Wright and his baggage. Reverend Wright's moment in the media spotlight has given his fellow believers an occasion to rally around their strange flag.

Many in the Obama campaign would probably prefer a clear strategy on Reverend Wright's comments--disown and disavow. Obama himself broke with his trademark equivocation during his interview with Fox News's Chris Wallace on Sunday and was actually explicit that the issue does matter and made his displeasure over Wright's comments clear. The problem for Obama is that he's the candidate of the left, and prominent parts of the left just can't bear the thought of parting ways with Reverend Wright."

Well, that'd include Dr. Bio-Wrightmaster and his Reppy buddies of the Biobrainiac tied-off nihilist hate-mongering black liberationist-supporting radical set!

Oh, and this:

"You’re a fucking adult; act like one."

Okay, I'll just switch to "dumbass" instead of "M-FCKR"!

I'm sure my buddies, the roughnecks down at Joe's bar, will be hip with that!! No metrosexuals there, bro!!

Yo!!

repsac3 said...

"Neither of us has claimed any love or support for Wright in toto. Neither of us has said that EVERYTHING eminating out of his mouth is golden. We addressed two specific sermons, and said that we understand his words. Then we said that we don't believe Obama thinks the same things as Wright, anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

You've said nothing anywhere in your whole flurry of bullshit--including your last bit, quoting Dean Barnett, at the Weekly Standard--to refute either point. It's obvious you've lost."

Doctor Biobrain said...

I don't know, John. While I see what you're saying about the "Style Over Substance" fallacy (which I had never heard of before), that really wasn't the specific angle I was going with. Because sure, Donnie often does use someone's insults as an excuse to not address the points they made, but I was more thinking of the specific ways he does that. Because his point against insults is that the insults undermine the point being made, because people who make insults are just lowly people.

Again, I suppose it's kind of a mix of both. He uses the insults as an excuse to avoid the subject AND thinks insults show the person's argument is undermined by their lack of character. And overall, it just fits into his overall theme of only addressing my arguments as a way of attacking me personally; and all because he resents the fact that he doesn't know the difference between facts and opinions and I do. Besides, "ad hominem" is Latin and that always sounds cooler to use.

Doctor Biobrain said...

How am I “conceding” on Webster’s? I had already accepted it before. It was with your “elaborations” and inventions that I rejected. But the definition itself was just fine and I don’t think I’ve ever rejected it. Here, I’ll just quote what I said before:

Let’s just make this simple by using the one and only Donald Fouglas approved definition of the word: "obvious - easily discovered, seen, or understood." And with the word “or” in there, that means I get to pick my definition, and I’ll take “understood”. And to make this easy for you, I’ll rewrite my original sentence to include the actual word from the definition. And that’d be “It's easily understood that 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.”

How’s that? That makes sense and still says exactly what I was trying to say. Obama has stated repeatedly that he doesn’t agree with his pastor on these matters, and everything Obama has said confirms that he doesn’t believe these things. That seems pretty easy to understand to me. Down right obvious, in fact. Sure, you don’t understand, but that’s not terribly surprising. Now, if you choose to think Obama’s lying when he says these things, that’s your right. But in my opinion, it’s obvious that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor, because I choose to think he’s being honest.


And I stand by that completely, though I’m not sure if you ever addressed what I wrote at all. So where is your definition that says only facts can be obvious? Oh, that’s right. You don’t have one, which is why you had to invent your own definition that you pretend were implied by the dictionary. And will you ever admit that you use “obvious” to mean the same thing I do? Or will you continue to pretend this is “burden shifting,” which allows you to evade the point?

As for your point on attacking me for writing “commonsense” instead of “common sense,” are you serious? Really?? Damn you’re desperate to find something to attack me on. Frankly, that kind of thing doesn’t bother me, as I’m fully aware that I’m not the best writer in the world. That’s what Mrs. Biobrain is for, as she’s definitely the wordsmith around here. She even knew that a polecat was a skunk!

But you want to know something odd? Apparently “commonsense” is a word, at least according to Dictionary.com. I guess it’s an optional thing, as they show it both ways. My dictionary in MS Word says it’s one word too, so I guess Bill Gates is a whacked M-FCKR too. And Google shows millions of entries for “commonsense” though many of them are duplicates, I’m sure. Huh, so I guess you were wrong about that word too. Any chance of a concession, and perhaps an apology?

Everything else you wrote was just noise, with the exception of you saying you’ll drop the lameass “M-FCKR!” thing. That’s the first intelligent thing you’ve said yet. But your absurd rant attacking liberals on Wright was entirely without substance. Will you ever learn how to debate, or is it all post-modern lecturing with you? Sure, you could have used my words or opinions to attack me…or at least the words or opinions of an actual liberal. But you just quote a strawman created by a conservative and attack that instead. Wow, and to think: I didn’t find that convincing.

But then again, you weren’t making a point to convince me. You were just smearing me and other liberals based upon the liberal voices you hear in your head. Just a guess, but I think you could improve your debate technique immensely if you actually tried understanding what your opponent was saying, rather than waging a debate with the imaginary liberals in your head. Just trying to help, though I’m sure I’ll just be insulted for my trouble.

Americaneocon said...

Enough with your dictionaries, Dr. Bioneverenditall.

It's common sense to know that those two words are a phrase, and you're defense of slinging them together does nothing to improve your reputation as offering analysis below the lowest notch on the scholarly pole.

Frankly, your schtick's gotten old, and if it weren't for my dogged, justifiable pride, I would have quit combatting your hopeless nihilism long ago. But it needs to be defeated, here and now, and while you yourself have said you'll keep going, even though you'd like to write more posts spewing the stuff of filthy smears against greedy conservatives and who knows what else, that reality, and any other cowardly bunk that you spill and swill, ad nauseum, can only live on in your own mind.

I've shown it repeatedly, and you've only got little Reppy and the "John" boy to back you up.

Give it up, man. You're far - extremely far - from the best nilhilists I've smacked back down, and I haven't even broken a sweat.

Next case!

repsac3 said...

He keeps talking about leaving... ...and yet keeps coming back...

He's like an obsessed polcat.

Sad.

repsac3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
repsac3 said...

Damned nilhilist denialist dictionaries... Everybody knows how low they are on the scholarly pole(cat).

If we was meant to use dictionaries for scholarly pursuits, they'd have 'em in schools & libraries, and... ...oh...

nevermind.

Americaneocon said...

You've done it again, Reppy!

"He's like an obsessed polcat."

I like it. I am a "polcat," i.e., a "pol"-itical science cool-"cat" who loves to smack down bio-denialists!

That's the best!!

ROFLMFAO!!

Keep it up, Repmaster Flash!!

Doctor Biobrain said...

So, they're my dictionaries are they? That's odd, seeing as how I quoted a definition that you said was in your paper dictionary, as well as quoting from an online dictionary you've cited in the past. But since you've already rejected all sources that don't come from inside your head, I guess my sources include anything that can actually be seen by people who aren't you.

And my "defense" of writing "commonsense" is that this is a common usage that is reflected in many dictionaries, books, and websites. Here's even an article you might enjoy from the Washington Times on Commonsense tax policies.

But feel free to ignore all the real world examples I've given to defend my word choices, just as you've ignored the examples of the word "obvious" that I got from your own blog. After all, my examples of other people using words the same way I do can be nothing but the sheerest nihilism. As is my use of actual dictionary definitions instead of your invented definitions. After all, reality is based entirely upon your personal preferences and changes whenever you need it to change. To suggest that you're not the center of the universe and arbiter of everything is nihilism.

Still waiting for any concession...

Americaneocon said...

This debate's not about common sense, but if you're so adamant, fine, you've made your point. I do exist in reality, and if I'm wrong about something, my bad.

Not you though. No siree ... you CAN'T be wrong because you really must change reality to fit an outwardly venal epistemology that sees the evil greedster conservatives as the source all malevolence in the universe, views that are like some slimy postmodern America-hating slicked-down nation-stabbing anti-American.

Look here, you're just shifting the debate one more time.

But hey, since you've conceded my superior logic to turn it on me, hey, I appreciate the compliment.

My point about "obvious" only being valid in terms of intersubjective meaning must have finally sunk in. In other words, it can only be used to refer to some objective fact.

My dictionary, your dictionary, it doesn't matter.

You cite above the dinition, "obvious - easily discovered, seen, or understood."

Okay, that's our agreed definition. And since you've said it has to be "OR," then "understood" is the way you want to to be.

Great!

You just concluded the debate, because the same logic applies. Another person can't "understand" someone's internal, subjective belief, as you say Obama's views on Wright are.

For something to be "understood" means it has to be understood by another's mind, and that takes the same external stimuli that's required for someone to know if something's "obvious." It's as simple as that.

So, sure, I'll make a note of "commonsense," and now that we're agreed that my outside examples are compelling (like Davis, Sweet, and Yglesias), you'll have to agree that your use of "obvious" exists only as the way you want it to, because for you there is no objective truth, hence it's a postmodern theory of "obvious" usage - the nihilist nomenclature of obviousness!

If someone points out how you change word meanings, or how you make up debate rules, then violate them, or how you ignore superior arguments, even those offered by your own backers - like "John" - then you'll do whatever you have to do to get out from being pinned like a greased, stinked-up tied off, conservative-hating, whacked-out polecat!

This debate goes all way back to last summer, in a sense, when I noted that you might have had a point about "opinion versus fact," but when according to your own rules of legal debate, you would not apply the same standards to your points, pawing if off, declaiming, it's MOOT, it's MOOT, like a whining six grader, then I knew you had little upstairs to really make a good point.

It's totally clear the way this whole thread's gone. The "opinion versus fact" line is just your trick to get out of ever committing to any bit outlandish radicalism that you routinely spout. Or, you just say, "you don't even know what the word means," a trick I've already smacked down, and turned on you because you really haven't been able to figure out basic words like "tautology" or logical rules like "external validity. So it's you who really doesn't know things. I'm a professor, but you're the one always telling me how dumb I am. LOL!!

But I've shown that under your own rules, and your usage of obvious, it's logicically impossible to use the "opinion" evasion here.

Note again how you phrase it:

"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."

Now, perhaps Obama believes differently than we think, but we can't know for sure because, according to your rules, an opinion can't be fact. So, while Obama could be of the opinion that Wright's views are odious, THAT OPINION CAN'T BE OBVIOUS, because OPINIONS ARE NOT OBJECTIVE PHENOMENA.

In sum, my point here pins you down using your own logic. I cannot "understand" someone else's opinion, because there's no objective basis to provide me with sensory stimuli to determine truth, like some type of hard evidence or data. I can "understand" the science of boiling water, because I know that the fire under the kettle raises the temperature of the water, steam indicates a certain elemental change of subparticle substances. My hand will burn if I touch the side of the boiling kettle, and the pain stimulus - neurological - tells my brain to pull back. We can't do that for an opinion. There's no stimulus. If someone else gets burned by the kettle, WE CAN EMPATHIZE with their pain, but CANNOT KNOW IT IN FACT.

The same logic applies to your discussion of Obama and Wright, under your own epistemolgy. We might be able to use someone's statement, but you've already said a stated opinon can't be fact, so that's out. You're left with nothing, except to say, I WON, I WON!! See, it's just commonsense, can't you see. Go look it up, any dictionary will do, "dumbass."

You're cooked, Dr. Biodenialistnihilistmaximalistfluffytrickster!

There is no logical way to get out from this jam. You've created it and it's time for to just say, simply, "I'm wrong."

You've already confirmed my logic on outside data to substantial what's obvious, and as "understood" makes no sense in the absence of an intersubjective hence objective data point to validate a truth claim, what can you do?

Nothing.

Now's the time for the concession. You can move on to greedy conservatives, but on this thread you're fried!!

repsac3 said...

What's obvious to Bio needn't be obvious to you, Don. A particular thing, be it fact or opinion, only needs to be obvious to one person--Bio--for him to state that that thing is obvious.

He so stated, and you've been picking at it, unsuccessfully, ever since...

You really ought to give it up, but speaking for myself, I'm relatively certain you won't. (And that, professor, is why we think you're a nutjob.)

John of the Dead said...

Your ignorance is rivaled only by your stupidity.

obvious - easily discovered, seen, or understood

OR. It need only be ANY ONE of those three. Given Sen Obama's direct statements, it IS easily discovered. QED. You lose. Again, and again, and again. Look, there's nothing in the definition that says that something must be easily discovered by the mentally handicapped, which is the only reason I can fathom as to why you STILL do not understand.

Also, might I add, your continued use of projection is bordering on the pathological. To accuse anyone else of altering definitions to fit their arguments is absurd. I've asked you many times, and you've continued to ignore me (which is in itself a tacit concession), but I'll ask again - Do you not realize that we can scroll up and watch you commit the fallacies and errors you're accusing others of committing?

I know you have a difficult time grasping the difference between the subjective and the objective. In fact, it seems that you have them exactly backwards. You constantly ask for objective verification of subjective opinion, and you treat objective fact (history, grammar, definitions, logic) as sujectively malleable. Here's a tip: whenever you think something is objective, treat it as subjective, and vice versa. It'll increase your accuracy.

Americaneocon said...

You're making my case! Thanks Reppy master:

"What's obvious to Bio needn't be obvious to you, Don. A particular thing, be it fact or opinion, only needs to be obvious to one person--Bio--for him to state that that thing is obvious."

That's exactly my point.

Dr. Biodenialist didn't say "it's obvious to me" that Obama views differ from Wright's. He said it's "obvious" in the objective sense, as defined by the definitions Dr. Bionumbskullnihilist himself has established.

You might as well hang back a bit, because the logical thrust of this thread passed up your comprehension.

That's why you mostly post videos on your blog.

repsac3 said...

"to me" was obviously implied in the sentence Bio wrote. (As he was clearly expressing his opinion in saying what he said, it was obvious to me--and dare I say it--should've been obvious to anyone who regularly speaks English.)

Good try, though... ...dumbass.

Americaneocon said...

Wrong again, Reppy:

Look what Dr. Biodenialmaster wrote himself:

"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.

There's nothing "implied" here. The statement's a clear use of "obvious" in the ojective sense, as defined by Webster's which Dr. Biodenialist has confirmed as the accetable definition.

Now you're not debating what Dr. Biodenialmachine, wrote but what he "implied," so you're trying to shift goalposts beyond anything that's ever been at issue in this whole thread.

That's dishonest. I've pinned you guys down so far that you resort to endless squirming to get out from any objective fact. That's postmodernist in the extreme:

Remember Dr. Sanity's got your number, e.g., CHANGING THE DEFINITIONS:

"Argument by definition is changing the meaning of words or concepts so that they support your argument (e.g., "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."; and other distortions of language like using the opposite meaning of a word as in Orwell's Newspeak)..."

And MOVING THE GOALPOSTS:

" - Moving the goalposts is a common practice in denial and occurs when someone always demands more evidence than can currently be provided. If that evidence becomes available at a later date, the demand is then made for even more evidence ad infinitum..."

Dr. Sanity's got you folks down cold!

You're almost as desperate not to look like a complete mountebank as is Dr. Bionumbnihilistmaster!

ROFLMFAO!!

repsac3 said...

The statement's a clear use of "obvious" in the ojective sense, as defined by Webster's which Dr. Biodenialist has confirmed as the accetable definition.

How many times do we have to go through this, Donnie...

There is no "objective sense" required by Webster's definition of obvious. Read it again...

Easily discovered, seen, or understood; readily perceived by the eye or the intellect; plain; evident; apparent

Now read what Bio wrote, again:

"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."

That Obama did not agree with Wright was easily understood by (or "readily perceived by his intellect" or "plain" or "evident to") Bio, hence, obvious to him. That's all the definition requires, and that's all Bio said.

To add an "objective sense" to the requirements is to change the definition of the word obvious, which is, in a classic example of projection (ask missanity), exactly what you're accusing us of doing...

Typical...

Now you're not debating what Dr. Biodenialmachine, wrote but what he "implied," so you're trying to shift goalposts beyond anything that's ever been at issue in this whole thread.

Just like you, I am reading the words and discussing their meanings... (Of course, I'm looking at the whole thing in context, rather than just the word "obvious," but perhaps you'll eventually get past that one word, too...) There is no goalpost shifting here, Donnie...

"Argument by definition is changing the meaning of words or concepts so that they support your argument (e.g., "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."; and other distortions of language like using the opposite meaning of a word as in Orwell's Newspeak)..."

In fact, it is your "elaborations" & "clarifications" of the word "obvious" that started the whole argument. Everyone here understood the meaning of the word "obvious," the paragraph it was in, and the whole post, except you.

By distorting the meaning (such as by adding an "objective sense" that is not required by any dictionary definition of the word), it is you doing that which your missanity writes of...

You really ought to stick to cheering on Hillary in the Dem primaries, with hopes of then being able to turn & trash her in the general, like a good little neocon... You've been losing this argument for far too long...

Doctor Biobrain said...

Wow. It took two comments, but you finally admitted fault at something. I’m honestly impressed.

But then what do you do? You go into your standard insult-filled tirade, accusing me of believing things I most certainly don’t believe. And for what? Because you made a mistake on yet another word, got caught on it, and then take your anger out on me. Sure, you finally conceded on one stupid point that you shouldn’t have brought up in the first place, but then come back angrier than ever. Great.

And then, wow, you really went down the rabbit hole on this one. You don’t think people can understand other people’s feelings and opinions? Really?? If your wife is sad, you can’t understand it? When you see a couple smiling blissfully on their wedding day, you don’t understand why they’re smiling? You just stare at them and wonder if one of them farted? You can’t be serious. All you did was redefine the word “understand” to mean “to know facts” and then pretend that this proves you right. But sorry pal, that’s not how this works. How many times do I need to explain that you can’t just invent definitions and expect them to mean anything?

And I’ve ALWAYS agreed that outside examples can be used in our debate. How could I not? That’s why I continue to point out how you’ve used the word “obvious” just as I’ve done. And as a reminder, you have repeatedly said that Lanny Davis used the word “clearly” in the same way that I did. I quote: “The problem for Davis, like you, is that we only have Obama's verbal statements to know "clearly" what he believes.” Can you not follow your own statements? I already corrected you on this last time. Both Lanny and I thought it was “obvious” and “clear” that Obama didn’t agree with his pastor. But now you keep forgetting that and imagine that Davis somehow helps your point. Toooo funny.

Oh, but before you embarrass yourself further, please do a search of your blog on the word “understand,” and you’ll understand why I’m about to skewer you with more “outside examples” which demonstrate that your narrow definition of the word is surely mistaken. Or are we still working with the idea that your words can’t be used as outside examples? Will you ever explain the logic of that?

And how is it possible that I “might have had a point about ‘opinion versus fact.’” Are you seriously suggesting that my argument was undermined because you came to think that I had “little upstairs”? That doesn’t even make sense. Either I was right about that, or I wasn’t. But my argument can’t be undermined by who I am. That’s the essence of the ad hominem fallacy, and you hate that one. I won that debate, just as I’ve won every debate we’ve had.

As for “tautologies” you haven’t shown how I’ve made even one. And for “external validity,” look I’ve already explained to you the external reasons I have for my opinions. Nothing else can be proven. How many times do I need to explain this to you: MY STATEMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN OPINION! It’s impossible. And if I was dumb enough to think it was an opinion, which I wasn’t, it would STILL be an opinion. Jesus christ, you’re so stupid. This goes all the way back to our N=1 debate: It doesn’t matter if you think an opinion is a fact; it’s still an opinion, dumbass. That’s what I’ve been saying from the start.

And look, you said it yourself. “OPINIONS ARE NOT OBJECTIVE PHENOMENA”. I agree completely, and there was nothing objective about the statement I made. It could ONLY have been opinion. But all the same, an opinion can be “obvious,” just as your opinion that America was “obviously not” ready for a war of scorched-earth annihilation. And I agreed with that opinion of yours. I understand it. But all the same, it was an opinion, and both of us find it “obvious.” What confuses you about this?

Oh, and just so you understand, words are “sensory stimuli.” If I hear Obama say something, my senses were stimulated. Same if I read words he said. Do you really not even think about this stuff before you write it? Not that I think you have to have sensory stimuli to understand something, but all the same, you’re wrong on what you wrote.

And you’re such a weirdo. Look, there is logic and there is illogic. But we don’t have our own logic. I’m not sure where you got the idea, but I’m sure it’s tied to your post-modernism. And the idea of using “outside data” to substantiate a point isn’t “your” logic; it’s logic. And everyone does it. You didn’t invent it. You don’t need to have that method approved by me in a debate. It’s how things work. I agree that Yglesias used the word “obvious” in a different sense than I did, and I showed how you used the word in the same sense that I did. I fail to see how this helps your point.

But again, we don’t have our own rules of logic. There is only logic. Similarly, we can’t create our own facts, as you’ve suggested. Or our own reality. There is one logic, one truth, one reality. And the sooner you understand that, the sooner you can finally abandon your nihilist thinking and join the real world. I’m not sure where you ever got the idea that I was the post-modernist here, but it’s obviously you.

And btw, I’ve invited you repeatedly to debate me on the “greedy conservatives” point, where I totally skewered your guy Brooks. But instead, you continue to argue the meaning of ONE WORD, by redefining it into absurdity. That’s your choice. You started this debate. You could just move on, but no. Here you are. Debating ONE WORD that you use just as I do.

But don’t worry, I already know you’re ready for the non-response response, where you don’t respond to any point I just made, but just insult me with a short tirade. What other choice do you have?

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biodenialistnumbskullmaster:

"You don’t think people can understand other people’s feelings and opinions?"

That's not the issue at all, and you know it. I've never said any such thing. It's your positing of Obama's views as obvious, and doing so in such a way that the usage logically asserts the assumption of external validity. I've as said repeatedly, you just don't get it - and to think, you keep thumping your chest like you've won the debate.

All you do is move on past the fatal logical points that I've made, ignoring them to drag out your comment count because you don't have a shred of gentlemanly honor to admit you're not only wrong, but badly so.

Address that and you can continue. Until then, you're still pinned.

But you continue to prove my case, in any event:

"If your wife is sad, you can’t understand it?"

The only way I could possible know my wife is sad, outside of her telling me, which is not an acceptable proof according to your own whacked rules, which even "John" has denounced (and now he regrets), is for her to outwardly show emotion, which I would have to perceive through sight or sound (or taste, of tears, for example), which would be an external stimulus for me to give her a hug and say "It's going to be okay."

Why do you even offer such erroneously pedestrian examples?

There's nothing you can offer to get out of your bind, because you're caught in an ironclad (practically mathematical) proof of your own illogic. But since your small-prick mentality won't let you concede a point, you continue on with mindless - essentially idiotic, even - examples to string things out so you'll never have to jump back into reality.

And you have the nerve to make this point:

"And I’ve ALWAYS agreed that outside examples can be used in our debate. How could I not? That’s why I continue to point out how you’ve used the word “obvious” just as I’ve done."

I don't know how many times I've said it, but my comments are not on the defense here.

If it was my post, and I made a mistake in logic, no biggie. I'd say sure and move on to the next case.

I have before, of course, frankly, because I'm traine to actually learn this way, and not be closed of to refuting knowledge, which is what's happening to in your case, you poor thing (and suffer your kids, who'll not have a true voice of reason to teach them as they get older, but only a genuine denialist, who'll practice parental malpractice, I'd imagine, in turning such progeny into another generation of Wright-backing America-bashers).

Now, Here I'm using extant examples outside of the participants of the debate to make you look bad.

IT'S YOUR USAGE OF OBVIOUS THAT'S AT ISSUE, and you can't defend it any better that a third grader who whines, "Well, he did it too."

Waaaaa!!!

So to be clear, one more time, my use of obvious is not at issue. We're looking at the logical issues IN YOUR POSTS. You're deploying more evasions and obfuscations, like you endlessly, since you have no mental firepower, and you've never had any mental firepower to make the case.

So, what happens? You look elsewhere for scapegoats. You look at my blog and whine like a FCKN' crybaby, saying "see, no fair, you do it too, waaaa! Teacher, teacher, he did it. Na na na na naaaa na!

That's really bad, but it gets worse, since you're feeling so put upon that you have to blog whore your own slimes of me in my own comments section.

You really don't have many readers, do you? I'll have to check with Dr. Sanity, but that's like commiting a heinous murder or something, and lingering around the scene of the crime in some kind of pathetic need to get caught after the fact. It's frankly, just whacked. No, it's not enough to have a debate here, in this thread, you've got to slur my reputation and then leave the evidence in my comments? Can't you get any of your own nihilist backers to read your swill?

Oh, I forgot, you've just got Reppy, and he must made you look really bad:

"A particular thing, be it fact or opinion, only needs to be obvious to one person - Bio - for him to state that that thing is obvious."

That's truly precious, priceless even.

Hey, why have scientific research, with peer evaluation, if someone can can just say, "Hey, I've got a cure for cancer here. You don't need to see any evidence, because I'm just stating it's "obvious," so, can you let me have my $250 million research grant? I know you'll just take my word for it."

What a riot you guys are over here!

But it's like I've said all along, regarding your nihilism, where you evince the most outlandish skepticism, the utter denial of all reality or any objective, verifiable proof or logics. There's just no basis for truth with you guys, because you'll move the goalposts, change the rules, argue an appeal to intellectualism ("your stupid rationalizations"), ad nauseums, deny and deny some more, then change the rules again, and that's after you've obfuscated the original question of the debate until no one knows WTF is going on any more!

Frankly, I don't know how you sleep at night, and I'm sure you won't let your family read this, since they'll truly see what a complete fraud you are.

I know you're dying to move on, because you keep making references to other threads, and you write a new post on this debate every week or so.

I'll debate other issues when you concede you've lost this one. I've hardly broken a sweat this far, but as you're committed to going on, it's a good thing Blogger's got the disk space, because I'm game.

Note too that I've linked to this post many times, because the more people who read this post will know what a true joke you are, and they'll thank me for exposing how fraudulent is your project.

Wright's a disaster, and Obama's not going to get away from him in the general, as John Judis noted:

"As the primaries have proceeded, he [Obama] has become more dependent on strong, almost unanimous, support from African American and young voters. For instance, he lost the California primary in February, but he still beat Clinton by a whopping 55 to 35 percent among white men. In North Carolina, where the white Democratic electorate is liberal and tolerant (only five percent of the primary electorate voted against Obama because of race, compared to over 11 percent in Pennsylvania and Ohio), Obama could still win only 36 percent of white voters. In the fall, when African Americans will only make up about 23 percent of North Carolina's electorate, he would have to win 38 percent of all whites to carry the state."

Obama's going to be hammered in the fall, which is exactly what the superdelegates fear most, although they by nature can't be seen as authoritarian, so they'll rally behind Obama in the end, know what a truly shitty hand the far-left base of the party has dealt them.

And you're part of that radical base, Dr. BionihilistradicalterrorendorserWrighthmaster!

John of the Dead said...

And we go round and round, with the self-professed goat fucker typing much, saying little, and what he does say is illogical and self-contradictory. Someone flag the carnie - I want off this ride.

Americaneocon said...

"John of the Dead":

Please continue, because the more you and Reppy spout off, the more you make your patron, Dr. Biomasterdenialnihilist, look bad.

Remember this?

"Someone's statement is only an opinion, not a fact, and thus cannot provide proof of an assertion. We'd need independent confirmation, in other words real evidence."

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, goat fucker. Sen Obama's opinion about his own opinion is inadmissible because it's... opinion? Is that right? In other words, you have arbitrarily disallowed the *ONLY* possible source for an answer to your question? In other other words, you've established a non-falsifiable statement, which, as I'm sure you're aware with you vast knowledge of debating terms, non-falsifiable statements cannot be logically debated. So you set the situation up for failure regardless of position. Great job, goat fucker!"

So, don't hold back. I just love how you point out the "illogical and self-contradictory."

ROFLMFAO!!

John of the Dead said...

And how, precisely, does my refutation of your argument help you? Are you just quoting things at random? Does your home-health aide know you're using the computer again?

Look, I pointed out your illogic and inconsistency. Posting a previous post of mine, which demonstrated your illogic and inconsistency, does not bolster your case. How god-forsakenly stupid can you be and still tie your shoes? Or, for that matter, remember to breathe? Here's a hint, from me to you - when attempting a rebuttal, don't prove your opponent's point for them.

Now, back to the pasture with you, goat fucker!

repsac3 said...

Nero's a legend in his own mind.

Regardless of the facts, he's already won the argument, simply because he thinks he has. What he doesn't realize is that everytime he "ROFLHFAO!!" at whatever the voices in his head tell him is so funny, the rest of us are laughing, as well -- at his foolishness.

Mr AmericanProjectionistWhoMakesUpStupidNamesForFolksBecauseHeThinksHe'sClever isn't about anything except promoting his own drivel of a blog and puffing up his own ego. (That "blogwhore" label he tossed at Bio is a direct quote of several bloggers, from the days when Donnie would visit lots of comments sections, write "Have a nice day" or something equally innane & off topic, and leave his blog link.) He's been proven wrong here a myriad of times & ways, and yet he keeps coming back for more.

Sad.

Doctor BioMyNameDefinesMyArgument said...

Donnie, uhm, you DID say that people can’t understand opinions. I quote:

I cannot "understand" someone else's opinion, because there's no objective basis to provide me with sensory stimuli to determine truth, like some type of hard evidence or data.

And you’re absolutely correct in saying that you can understand if your wife is sad. That’s why I said it. You can understand that she’s sad based upon things that she says and the way she looks and acts. Similarly, people can understand that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor, based upon things that he has said and how he acts. Like when he said “I strongly disagree with many of his political views.” This is the “external validity” you’ve asked for. I’ve made this point repeatedly. What is your confusion here?

So it would seem that people CAN understand my opinion of Obama and think it’s obvious, based upon your own criteria. When your wife cries, it’s “obvious” that she’s sad; even if that’s only your opinion. Opinions can clearly be “obvious.”

And look, when I quoted you using the word “obvious” the same way I did, these were “outside examples” of people using the word in the same way I did. In this case, it was YOU using the word in the same way I did. I’m not asking you to defend these statements. I’m demonstrating that you clearly have the same meaning for the word I do and are being a stubborn hypocrite for suggesting otherwise. Again, what is your confusion here? You admit that “outside examples” can be used to show that “he did it too” is a viable defense, and so I provided “outside examples” from the best source I could find: You. But please, whine about obfuscations again. Perhaps I’ll be dumb enough to agree next time.

And as a reminder, we’re not debating an “error in logic” that I’ve made here. Your point is that I made an error in word choice, because I used one word in the same way that you’ve used it. ONE WORD, that’s what this debate is about. Of course, you suggest that the use of this ONE WORD has irrevocably (and impossibly) changed my statement of opinion into a statement of fact; but all the same, your point is that it was the word choice that did this, and that my statement would have been accurate, had I not used this ONE WORD. A bigger man would wrongly say that I was sloppy with my word choice; but only a hack like you could suggest that this ONE WORD makes me a fraud. ONE WORD.

Oh, and when I left that link at your blog, that wasn’t blog whoring. I don’t expect any of your dumbass readers to start reading my blog, and I definitely don’t want them here. I left that link just for you, Donnie. Like a big stinking irrefutable turd on your own blog, yet…no rebuttal. Nothing. I totally skewered what you had to say, and all you can do is personally attack me…yet again. How surprising. Professor Donald Fouglas shows that he has to use personal insults as substitutes for actually rebuttals…yet again.

And I even mocked you AND one of your dumbass readers on your comments section yet…no response. What’s the matter, Don? Afraid your readers will see what a fraud you are? Of course you do. And based upon your invented “ping-pong” logic of debates, a non-response is an implied concession. But seeing as how I was certainly right and you were definitely wrong, I guess the implied concession was better than an explicit concession, huh?

And Donald, I didn’t “slur” your reputation in my post. In fact, if you read the post, you saw that I spoke highly of you; making note of your “infinite wisdom” and describing your advice as “brilliant.” Sure, it was meant sarcastically, but I’ve learned that conservatives are entirely incapable of understanding irony, so you shouldn’t worry about the effect of this on your readers. And note, rather than referring to you as a “fascist,” as a response to you calling me a “leftist” on your blog, I accurately labeled you a “conservative nutjob,” which I think was quite fair-minded of me. Geez, some people can be sooooo ungrateful.

But just as a reminder, conservatives hate liberals. So the real “slur” of your reputation would be if I honestly spoke highly of you. But no worries there, Fouglas. That ain’t never going to happen, so your reputation as a conservative nutjob remains firmly in place.

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biocircularreasoningmaster:

This violates your own rules of debate:

"You can understand that she’s sad based upon things that she says and the way she looks and acts. Similarly, people can understand that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor, based upon things that he has said and how he acts."

You've said many times that we cannot rely on someone's statements as facts, and how Obama acts can only be considered subjectively, so it's not objective in the sense to which I've already established as your use of "obvious." Someone can't cry "obviously," although tears can show an emotion, but what they actually signal is unknown outside of verbal communication, which is ruled out by your own system of debate. So you're stuck on this, again.

You've tried to spin this debate so far from the original point that it's not even funny. All you can do is say how dumb I am, but you deal with my argument by pointing out your won flawed reasoning, except to quibble further with what "understand" means according to your own shifting meanings.

Remember:

"Argument by definition is changing the meaning of words or concepts so that they support your argument (e.g., "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."; and other distortions of language like using the opposite meaning of a word as in Orwell's Newspeak)..."

So, forget "understand" for a second (you'll find some other definintion with which to squirm), and deal with the real issues in my recent posts, which you ignore because you've got nothing.

Recall:

"The "opinion versus fact" line is just your trick to get out of ever committing to any bit outlandish radicalism that you routinely spout. Or, you just say, "you don't even know what the word means," a trick I've already smacked down, and turned on you because you really haven't been able to figure out basic words like "tautology" or logical rules like "external validity. So it's you who really doesn't know things. I'm a professor, but you're the one always telling me how dumb I am. LOL!!

But I've shown that under your own rules, and your usage of obvious, it's logicically impossible to use the "opinion" evasion here.

Note again how you phrase it:

"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."

Now, perhaps Obama believes differently than we think, but we can't know for sure because, according to your rules, an opinion can't be fact. So, while Obama could be of the opinion that Wright's views are odious, THAT OPINION CAN'T BE OBVIOUS, because OPINIONS ARE NOT OBJECTIVE PHENOMENA.

In sum, my point here pins you down using your own logic. I cannot "understand" someone else's opinion, because there's no objective basis to provide me with sensory stimuli to determine truth, like some type of hard evidence or data. I can "understand" the science of boiling water, because I know that the fire under the kettle raises the temperature of the water, steam indicates a certain elemental change of subparticle substances. My hand will burn if I touch the side of the boiling kettle, and the pain stimulus - neurological - tells my brain to pull back. We can't do that for an opinion. There's no stimulus. If someone else gets burned by the kettle, WE CAN EMPATHIZE with their pain, but CANNOT KNOW IT IN FACT.

The same logic applies to your discussion of Obama and Wright, under your own epistemolgy. We might be able to use someone's statement, but you've already said a stated opinon can't be fact, so that's out. You're left with nothing, except to say, I WON, I WON!! See, it's just commonsense, can't you see. Go look it up, any dictionary will do, "dumbass."

Note again, from the passage. We cannot know OBJECTIVELY SOMEONE'S OPINION, which is what you're trying to argue here, with the analogy to my wife's crying.

Give it up, Dr. Biohoplesslylamemaster!

repsac3 said...

There you go, Bio...

Words mean what Donnie says they mean, and since he's decreed that "obvious" must only be used to describe objective fact (though there is no backup in any dictionary to support such a rule, and Donnie's just making it up, since he can't win the argument any other way), you're like a pinned polecat, 'cause ol' Donnie says so.

(Please check with AmericanMakesShitUpAsHeGoesAlongMaster before speaking in future, so he may (re)define your words to his liking, and thus give your statements prior approval...)

Doctor Biobrain said...

This violates your own rules of debate.

Sigh. Donald, you little post-modernist, we don’t have our own rules of debate; not in the real world, anyway. There are rules of debate and we all share them. And while you have invented quite a few weird rules of debate which are comprehensible only to you, the ones I cite are universal to everyone. They’re not mine. I didn’t invent them. And you can use them too, if you could ever get outside of your fantasy world long enough to understand how they work.

And as for these rules you say are mine, all I said was that we can’t base facts upon personal statements; and that’s certainly true. For example, Obama’s and Bush’s statements can’t be used as irrefutable facts; and that we can only use them to form our opinions. But we can DEFINITELY form opinions from them, which I have. And these opinions can be “obvious” and “easily understood.” If you see your wife crying, you might think it’s “obvious” that she’s sad. And if she told you that she was crying because she was thinking of her pet cat that died when she was seven, you might “understand” why she’s sad. In other words, you’d “understand” her feelings and might even empathize with her.

And that’s it. That’s the end of it. You’ve said yourself that “obvious” can mean “easily understood.” Nowhere does it say “obvious” can only refer to understanding objective things; not outside of your invented definitions, anyway. “Obvious” can mean “easily understood.” And that’s it. You lose. The definition didn’t say “understood objectively.” It just said “understood.” Just like you can “understand” that your wife is sad based upon her actions. You’re “understanding” her feelings and creating a subjective opinion based upon them; and that opinion is both “obvious” and “easily understood.”


And you really show your ignorance when you suggest that “Argument by Definition” is some sort of trick where we change the definition of words. Look, it’s one of the most basic types of arguments. Try looking up the term and you’ll see what I mean. It just means that you use the definition of a word to prove your point. For example, if you were holding a chicken egg and I said it wasn’t a chicken egg, you would cite the definition of chicken eggs to show that you were right. It’s really one of the most straightforward debate techniques; and no, I didn’t invent it.

And look, you’ve been using this debate technique the whole time, except that you were stuck using the wrong definition because your initial premise was wrong. You’ve tried to use the definition of the word “obvious” to show that I used the word incorrectly. That’s Argument by Definition. But of course, in order to be right, you have to use the right definition; which you didn’t. But as long as you use the right definition, you win the argument. It’s that simple. And I’m sure you use this technique all the time.


And just as a helper, here’s how this argument should have gone down:
Donald: By saying that it’s “obvious” that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor, are you saying this is a fact?
Me: Of course not. It can only be my opinion, because it’s only based upon Obama’s statements and I can’t possibly prove it.
Donald: Ok, good. You should be careful about your word usage, as I interpreted your use of “obvious” to mean that you thought this was an objective fact.
Me: Yeah, I see what you’re saying. But I’ll use whatever damn words I want, thanks.
Donald: Sure thing, polecat.

End scene. See how easy that would have been? But nooooo. Instead of asking me what I meant, you TOLD me what I meant, and still insist that your interpretation of my words is more accurate than my own interpretation; despite the fact that my interpretation is consist with everything I’ve said, while you yourself admit that your interpretation of my words would be a contradiction of what I’ve said before. But of course, that’s the reason you insist I said the wrong thing, because you WANT me to have made a contradiction. But it’s obvious I never did, and you could have avoided all this if you had just asked me to explain my meaning instead of attacking me with your own interpretation.

And as another reminder, your interpretation was based solely on my use of one word which you yourself has said means “easily understood,” and have not cited one source which says it only means “objectively understood,” as you want it to mean. And to think, you suggested I had “no intellectual standards” in that first post, while you continue to reinvent reality based upon your own opinions and insist that they’re indisputable truth.

PS: In your reply, you need to explain where you got the “objective” part of your definition, or admit that we can “easily understand” subjective things, like our wives’ feelings and whether Obama can be believed.

Americaneocon said...

Dr. Biodenialistprovesmypoints:

"Sigh. Donald, you little post-modernist, we don’t have our own rules of debate; not in the real world, anyway. There are rules of debate and we all share them."

Well, we should hope so, only that you yourself have developed this elaborate theory of "opinion versus fact" which holds that one's statement can't be used to validate a fact, blah, blah...

Do I really need to fetch the quotes?

"John" himself identified you as a fraud, so for you to say there are rules for all of us to follow is a bit insincere, insolent, or insane. You pick.

And this:

"And as another reminder, your interpretation was based solely on my use of one word which you yourself has said means “easily understood,” and have not cited one source which says it only means “objectively understood,” as you want it to mean."

I've laid out the logic for this over and over. For someone to understand something requires an objective stimulus, like elaboration of a quadratic equation on the chalkboard in a math class, whereby the students learn and absorb the stimulus. It's clear and rigorous, and uniformly accepted a science. Students would be expected to "undertand" the proofs if they hope to pass the class.

We cannot "understand" Obama's purported "acts" that suggest he believes otherwise from Wright. Is he going to jump up and down on a campaign stage like a monkey, and we'll say, "Oh, he must not hate America after all."

No, you've elaborated a set of rules, and I've pinned you down until you've run out of evasions, so what do you do? Turn the tables, trying some trickery in deflecting my own arguments against you back at me.

A fluffy trickster! Just like last summer!

Sorry. You're out of excuses. I've already said that this is not just about one word. It's about your utter hypocrisy, your postmodern nihilism, and your adocacy of Wright-backed America-hatred.

You're way out there, Dr. Denialmcnasty.

You're fried here too.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Donald, how many times do we need to go over this? You CAN understand feelings and opinions; as you’ve said yourself. If your wife tells you that she’s sad about her dead cat, can you “understand” why she’s sad? Of course you can! If you see newlyweds smiling, can you “understand” why they’re happy? Of course you can! Where did you get the idea that “understanding” requires objective proof? Please answer this question.

And look, the rule that says that statements can’t be used to create facts isn’t MY rule. That’s life, pal. That’s how reality works. I didn’t invent that. Jesus, you’re an idiot. I can’t believe you’d say such a stupid thing. Otherwise, you’re admitting that we can prove that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor, because he says he doesn’t. And while I think it’s obvious that Obama doesn’t agree with his pastor, I’d never suggest this is irrefutable fact. How could I? It’s impossible to prove.

Again, do you think that Obama’s statement that he “strongly disagrees” with his pastor “proves” that he doesn’t agree with his pastor? Of course not. So you agree with me that statements can’t create facts. Why do you make me embarrass you like this? And I didn’t invent this “elaborate theory.” This is how reality works, and even you don’t think we can invent our own facts. So why do you suggest that this is my theory?

And just as a reminder, I’ve NEVER suggested that my statement about Obama was an empirical statement. NEVER. So in no way am I in violation of this rule of reality. At best, you can argue that I used ONE WORD incorrectly. And I disagree with that. But in NO CASE can you suggest that I think my statement was empirical, because I’ve said the exact opposite every time. And if you were ever confused by my use of the word “obvious,” my explanation should have sufficed to end your confusion.

Perhaps it would help if I explained that opinions can be right or wrong. For example, if a student cheats on a test and you state that he cheated, you’d be correct. But it’s your opinion. And if you later proved that he cheated by watching a videotape of him cheating, it would stop being an opinion and would become fact. And while the statement was correct the whole time, it was an opinion until you proved it, and then it became a fact.

But unfortunately, we can never know what Obama’s opinion of his pastor is or what Bush’s opinion of the troops is. We can have our opinions and they might be right, but they’ll never become fact. Because we can never prove what somebody else is thinking, and no videotape or statement or action can change this. You have your opinion about Obama and Bush and I have mine, and we’ll never know which of us was correct.

And again, these aren’t MY rules. This is reality. Deal with it.

John of the Dead said...

one's statement can't be used to validate a fact,

Don't be dense. A person's statement of fact can OF COURSE be used the verify a fact. A person's statement of OPINION cannot be used as a factual statement. Do you STILL not see the difference? Every time I think you've hit the bottom of the stupid well, you keep digging.

"John" himself identified you as a fraud...

What the hell are you talking about? You've gone from losing to lying. I've only bolstered his case, you retard. I'm certain you can provide some objective evidence that shows that I've called Bio a fraud; otherwise, you're a liar. In addition to being a goat fucker.

For someone to understand something requires an objective stimulus, like elaboration of a quadratic equation on the chalkboard in a math class, whereby the students learn and absorb the stimulus.

You *are* this stupid, aren't you? You really think the equation itself is the stimulus, don't you? Go buy a clue - the stimulus is the chalk on the board, not the abstract equation. The abstract equation may be true or false; the stimulus itself, visual light striking the retina, is only light. It's not "true" in any logical sense. By your logic, if I were to write, "Blue is a nice color," on the chalk board, that would not be objective stimulus, since it is a subjective statement; but the stimulus, light on a retina, is objective, insofar as everyone will see the same image. Do you see the difference? (Of course not. You're far too stupid.)

Americaneocon said...

I'll copy from your own commenter, you *are* this stupid, aren't you?, with regard to this:

"If you see newlyweds smiling, can you “understand” why they’re happy?

Look, the groom could have just ripped the nastiest fart, with the bride barely able to hold in her laughs while fighting off the urge to yell out at the top of her lungs, my "new husband just cut the cheese!"

It's a wedding, of course, not a kegger party, so the couple would be more rectified, but we can no more understand why the couple's smiling than we can know what causes a dog to wag it's tail. We can hypothesize but we have no evidence.

You're really going off on me, Dr. Biowackadoodle!

The proof is that your entire dodge to "understanding" as a confirmation that Obama believed differently from Wright is a sick joke, meaning you're looking more the denialist all the time.

Then this:

"And look, the rule that says that statements can’t be used to create facts isn’t MY rule. That’s life, pal. That’s how reality works. I didn’t invent that. Jesus, you’re an idiot."

<----END

Actually, no it's not life. Your own commenter debunked you, remember:

"Someone's statement is only an opinion, not a fact, and thus cannot provide proof of an assertion. We'd need independent confirmation, in other words real evidence."

So, let me see if I understand you correctly, goat fucker. Sen Obama's opinion about his own opinion is inadmissible because it's... opinion? Is that right? In other words, you have arbitrarily disallowed the *ONLY* possible source for an answer to your question? In other other words, you've established a non-falsifiable statement, which, as I'm sure you're aware with you vast knowledge of debating terms, non-falsifiable statements cannot be logically debated. So you set the situation up for failure regardless of position. Great job, goat fucker!"

<----END

I know it just piss off the old Goat-mongerer "John", but he makes a good point, which backs my case from last summer, where 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.

Your "rule" is simply used for your convenience so you never have to take a stand on a position, and remember you'll disregard your OWN rules as soon as you're losing a debate. It's just another trick you deploy to try to get out from being pinned down.

The issue in any case, is not some married couple's emotions, it's your statement that:

"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."

<----END

Your usage, again, for most endless umpteenth time, evinces the logic of external validation, and as you appealed to a comparison to Carpetbagger you yourself wanted your point to be evaluated as such.

This is not "understanding" Obama's "acts" but assessing your point that there's an "obvious" objective system of evidence to which you refer, just like Yglesias in his example, but you refused to provide the evidence to substantiate your claim, like a predetermined loser.

Instead, you're reduced to calling me an idiot, which is natural, since we've been over just about every angle you can possibly imigine and we're back to square one:

Why is it obvious what Obama knows?

Any outside observer knows you lost this debate a long time ago, but as you pledge to continue, even though you're trying to trick me to debate other things, like the greediness of conservatives, or how much white working class voters can't stand the Illinois Senator, it's not working. You're stuck having to make a case with more additional red herring obfuscations, but you can't.

You're fried.

Even your own words indicate that you really don't understand the nature of epistemology:

"And just as a reminder, I’ve NEVER suggested that my statement about Obama was an empirical statement."

<----END

Well, duh.

I've made the argument to show that you're made an empircal statement, which you can't support, but you don't want to be seen as below a greedy (neo)conservative, so whatever sense of warped pride you have keeps you digging deeper, even though the main rule of digging is when you've dug yourself down into a sh$&#@hole you should stop digging! I'm sure your daugher still thinks highly of you nevertheless, but having accepted the basic definition of obvious you can't squirm out now from it's precise meaning. You just won't die in debate, from that warped egomaniacal sense if inferior superiority. It's clinical really, but I guess that's why you fancy yourself Dr. Biomcnastywordsmithiannihilist.

So, let's just get back to the reality here! All you've done is endlessly contort "understandings" and so forth to squirm and squeal like a nihilist polecat. You've got nothing, except to continue to call me names.

And you also try to squirm out of your difficulties by turning the tables, like this:

"And you really show your ignorance when you suggest that “Argument by Definition” is some sort of trick where we change the definition of words. Look, it’s one of the most basic types of arguments. Try looking up the term and you’ll see what I mean. It just means that you use the definition of a word to prove your point. For example, if you were holding a chicken egg and I said it wasn’t a chicken egg, you would cite the definition of chicken eggs to show that you were right. It’s really one of the most straightforward debate techniques; and no, I didn’t invent it."

<---END

Of course you didn't invent it. I've shown that all you do is argue by definition the whole time.

Remember your main thrust of evasion is to say, "Hey, you don't even know what the word means," which is a prelude to offering some new definintion from "Hypodermic dictionary," but you stopped doing that, because once I used the same dictionary to show your ignorance and evasion, you had to pull something off new.

Which is now to just deflect all my devasting points of rebuttal back at me. You're like a vampire trying to get away from the garlic. Maybe some supernatural mirror will help you deflect the organic death, while you go slink back to your box avoiding a dagger to the heart.

Remember:

"Denial can be thought of as a complex psychological process where there may be some conscious knowledge or awareness of events in the world, but somehow one fails to feel their emotional impact or see their logical consequences.

Denial is an attempt to reject unacceptable feelings, needs, thoughts, wishes--or even a painful external reality that alters the perception of ourselves. This psychological defense mechanism protects us temporarily from:

-Knowledge (things we don’t want to know)...

-Insight or awareness that threatens our self-esteem; or our mental or physical health; or our security (things we don't want to think about)...

-Unacceptable feelings (things we don’t want to feel)..."

<------END

It's rough for you, I know, that's why you're like Lewis Carrol, remember, from earlier in this thread, which pinned you down previously, before, when you thought you could argue by rebuttal, but now you're just aping my fatal blows of superior logic and argumentation:

"So, let's refer to Lewis Carroll for reference to your slippery wordplay.

Here’s the famous dialogue from the Lewis Carroll work, in which Humpty arrogantly tells Alice he can manipulate words and make them do whatever he wants:

"‘[T]hat shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents — ‘

`Certainly,’ said Alice.

`And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’

`I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.

`When _I_ use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’

`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master—that’s all.’"

Apparently, for Dr. Biobrain, the arrogant, slippery spin-master, they can many many things."

<-----END

But you did try this new tact, unsuccessfully:

"And as a reminder, we’re not debating an “error in logic” that I’ve made here. Your point is that I made an error in word choice, because I used one word in the same way that you’ve used it. "

<---END

Well, no. If I'd said you'd used the wrong word we'd have been debating that the whole time.

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.

It can't, and I've proved the point numerous times, which is why you keep changing the rules, or the shifting the goalposts or protesting that I'm holding you to "JUST ONE WORD."

I am, indeed, and in so doing I've outed you as the most desperate, nihilist evasion-master slimeball rally puke-taster extroadinaire polecat snaggletooth lying obfuscator-general that could possibly be still alive.

I'm holding a cross to your face, Dr. Biovampiredenialistlosermaster.

You're pinned down, through the heart.

Time to concede...

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 239   Newer› Newest»