29-04-2003 05:13									#151
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I see nothing wrong with his argument technique. You mean, except for the parsing of sentances to oblivion?

Sometimes it's hard to judge when to deal with the sum of a argument or to take each idea within the argument as separate issues requiring distinct answers. I've found that dilemma to be a bigger problem when dealing with a poor argument. My solution has been to avoid all such discussions except those with posters whose opinion I value.

	29-04-2003 05:50									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Agathon - What consequences? Do you understand that an assertion should be followed by proof?

Well it was followed by a lot of argument in the previous debate. Arguments which you either ignored or wilfully misunderstood.

quote: BS, I gave you the definition of coercion from the dictionary and you ignored it because you want to debate with definitions you get to make up.

Rule 1 in philosophy is "don't take definitions of philosophical concepts from dictionaries, which aren't written to solve philosophical problems."

I'd quite happily go with a dictionary definition actually because it would support my case rather than yours (given that Libertarians have queer ideas about coercion while normal people don't).

quote: In the libertarian debate where you claimed "prisoner's dilemmas" showed libertarianism is contradictory (an assertion you never did prove inspite of 2 lengthy threads, you know, the debate from which I got my sig), I said the only moral method for funding government was thru voluntary means and user fees.

This is a deliberate and fraudulent misrepresentation. Collective action problems are practical problems for Libertarian systems (esp for Randian systems). That's different from the inconsistency argument which is that commitment to liberty often requires us to violate it (something which pure libertarian systems don't allow).

In fact, if you had followed that argument you would have seen that Lloyd put up a reasonable defence and managed to save his version from inconsistency. Unfortunately the price of doing that was reducing it to implausibility by making it basically religious morality without God. Kudos to him for arguing fairly though.

quote: I didn't even mention the mods, you did. They were just 2 out of maybe a dozen people arguing against your proposition. As for "differential treatment", racism wasn't even the issue, it was about women not being allowed at Augusta. You kept trying to introduce racism and others kept reminding you it was about women. You argued against Augusta's policy because of "sexism" while dismissing the non-sexist arguments offered in support of banning women as insufficient grounds. But you also argued in favor of all women clubs because "men are pigs", a sexist argument. When we said women on average are slow golfers, you said that only justifies banning slow golfers, not women. But you supported banning men because "men are pigs" even though that too is a generalisation. Your position was inconsistent, of course, that's what's consistent about you.

There's no inconsistency in this position. If there is a problem with sexual harassment in a gym that can be good reason for women only gyms. Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for golf clubs. That's different from discriminating for racist or sexist reasons, which I have a problem with.

If you had followed the way the argument context developed, instead of dredging up old posts from different contexts, you wouldn't have been so confused.

	29-04-2003 05:58									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

And before you come up with some spurious objection:

The position that women only gyms or men only golf clubs are permissible is an hypothetical imperative - that means it depends on the reason for it being a good reason. Both don't have to be consistent with each other depending on how the contingent facts turn out. Arguments based on fact (like Ming was offering) are going to be useful in this sort of debate.

The position that discriminating for racist reasons is wrong is a categorical imperative (i.e. it's always wrong - and don't confuse this with "the" categorical imperative). No amount of physical facts is sufficient to argue with this claim - it has to be argued in terms of moral principles. Physical facts can only come in at the level of application, rather than justification.

Your inability to understand this elementary point of logic is at the root of your problems.

Now stop confusing the modalities of these statements and you might come up with a useful objection.

	29-04-2003 06:06									#154
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If you want to discuss Augusta again, bump the thread...

But in quick review... you were the only person not being logical... so cram it...

	29-04-2003 06:09									#155
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I would like to see a debate between Etheired and Berzeker. Of course it would never end and Apolyton would have to buy another server before it was over. But anyway I thnk that Etheired was worse. He would even parse whole sentences into convinient phrases in order to lose the context and confuse the issue. Once I took one of his posts and parsed it into one or two words each with an irrelevant comment after each one to see how he liked it but he answered each one with the world's longest post.

	29-04-2003 06:12									#156
	Put an end to popups!

MtG doesn't like getting into arguments with me.

	29-04-2003 06:15									#157
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by LTEC! MtG doesn't like getting into arguments with me.

	29-04-2003 06:18									#158
	Inflate your Upload Space

I get a one-up.

	29-04-2003 06:21									#159
	Increase the size of your Attachments

It's a rule... husbands CAN'T win arguments with their wives. I think it's one of those unspoken wedding vows

	29-04-2003 06:40									#160
	Increase Your PM Length

Mrs Horse refuses to argue with me. She just threatens to kick me out or get the divorce papers.

In other words she goes straight for nukes.

I think this is unfair but otoh even if you win an argument with your wife you lose anyway so it probably just saves time

	29-04-2003 06:46									#161
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes.. the last thing you really want to do is PROVE that your wife was wrong about ANYTHING... you do lose for winning

	29-04-2003 06:47									#162
	Remove this text

Imran -

quote: Ye of bad memory... I'm talking about two years ago.

Ye gads, 2 years ago and I'm supposed to be able to confirm or refute that? You accused me in the Santorum thread of calling you a left winger when I said your interpretation of the interstate commerce clause was left wing, and I had to point out the difference between being a left winger and using a left wing interpretation of a constitutional clause. Then you said you rejected that expansive definition of the ICC so I don't know what you think now. Btw, didn't you say my position was left wing too? I know I had to track down the original intent of substantive due process to show it wasn't originally left wing even though left wingers have been using to create bogus rights.

quote: If you made the same argument two years ago, then fine, but you didn't . You called me an out and out leftist because I thought welfare wasn't a bad idea.

Then why run from the label if that's what you believe? There are plenty of people here who don't shy away from being called left wing, they call themselves that.

quote: Btw, since I supported the New Deal, am I a leftist now?

I don't know what you support, Imran, you keep changing your position. First you make arguments based on the expanded (i.e., perverted) meaning of the interstate commerce clause and then you say you don't agree with that expanded definition.
YES, if you support the New Deal, you're a leftist. The New Deal was a leftist agenda, if you think it was a right wing agenda, where does that leave the Framers who never dreamed they were giving Congress the power to force us into a federal retirement system, much less all the other big government programs started by FDR. Btw, Bismarck started the welfare system in Germany to ward off the socialists, so what does that tell you? It doesn't tell me a welfare state is right wing...And what does the left in this country call conservatives who want to roll back or eliminate the welfare state? Right wingers?

quote: You mean, except for the parsing of sentances to oblivion?

Like I said before, you guys need to learn what "parsing" means. It doesn't mean quoting sentences and responding.

MRT -

quote: because i dont have the will to engage in a long debate with you.

You mean any debate. When you jumped into that prior thread about libertariansim, all you did was troll. I never could get you to respond to my rebuttals.

quote: and youll never admit if you are wrong. thats why.

I have, but the truth is irrelevant now, isn't it, MRT. When have you admitted being wrong? You effectively admitted lying in that thread when you said you were just trying to piss me off instead od debating your assertions.

quote: its like arguing with a brick wall

My God you're a hypocrite. When I defended myself from your accusations you just ignored me and went on to repeat the same accusation.

quote: and im not saying youre dense, no, youre actually very bright, but the way you conduct yourself is aggrivating because youre stubborn, and what you will do is just take quotes out of context and argue the merits of single comments rather than the whole arguement put together.

So prove it. I've heard this accusation before and I always ask the plaintiff to show me how and where I took something out of context and they just ignore my request and continue debating. When I think someone has taken my words out of context, I don't have a temper tantrum, I show them what I meant and where I believe they mis-construed my argument. Btw, that "whole" argument depends on the ideas contained within the sentences. If someone offers up multiple ideas in a paragraph, or even one sentence, I'll address them separately and they are free to explain why one part of a paragraph requires inclusion in another.

Spencer -

quote: B can actually write structured sentences and spell. I see nothing wrong with his argument technique.

Thx, but you're just making yourself a target.

	29-04-2003 06:47									#163
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What's the point in getting married then?

	29-04-2003 06:55									#164
	Full PM-box? Change here!

when im wrong ill admit to it, but opinions arent based on fact and therefore i dont need to prove my opinions.

	29-04-2003 07:12									#165
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ming Yes.. the last thing you really want to do is PROVE that your wife was wrong about ANYTHING... you do lose for winning

In many marital arguments I think couples are really fighting about something else from what they are arguing about. So it doesn't matter what you say.

i.e. an argument about housework or the family budget can really be an argument about not enough TLC in the relationship.

If so, its pointless to say "Okay, I'll do more housework"

Marriage is very confusing for mere males

	29-04-2003 07:16									#166
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Yeah yeah i understand all of that Horse.

It just seems like too much work

what are the benefits of doing it all i hear about are people griping about their marriages...

	29-04-2003 07:20									#167
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

You'll meet someone one day and none of this will matter

	29-04-2003 07:26									#168
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ming Yes.. the last thing you really want to do is PROVE that your wife was wrong about ANYTHING... you do lose for winning

Which is why, for the last 2 years, I haven't proven my wife wrong when she says there are 51 states.



ACK!

	29-04-2003 07:26									#169
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: You'll meet someone one day and none of this will matter

Okay

I'll take your word for it

	29-04-2003 07:33									#170
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln I would like to see a debate between Etheired and Berzeker. Of course it would never end and Apolyton would have to buy another server before it was over. But anyway I thnk that Etheired was worse. He would even parse whole sentences into convinient phrases in order to lose the context and confuse the issue. Once I took one of his posts and parsed it into one or two words each with an irrelevant comment after each one to see how he liked it but he answered each one with the world's longest post.

Ethelred, I almost forgot about him. He was a Beserker before there was a Beserker. I agree that he probably was even a little worse. Beserker has emotions such as anger and at least shows some signs of humanity. Ethelred just seemed like some sort of computer.

But I agree, Ethelred vs. Beserker, that would be a hell of a thing. I would even pay money to see that.

	29-04-2003 07:34									#171
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Tuberski Which is why, for the last 2 years, I haven't proven my wife wrong when she says there are 51 states. ACK!

She probably counts Australia.

	29-04-2003 07:38									#172
	Increase Your PM Length

Agathon -

quote: Well it was followed by a lot of argument in the previous debate. Arguments which you either ignored or wilfully misunderstood.

I repeatedly explained why mugging people is not a right under libertarianism and you neither quoted any libertarian who believed it was a right or explained why using threats of violence are not coercive.

quote: Rule 1 in philosophy is "don't take definitions of philosophical concepts from dictionaries, which aren't written to solve philosophical problems."

Translation: Let Agathon make up the rules once he discovers the absurdity of his arguments. Explain why the definitions of coercion and freedom change once we enter the mystical realm of "philosophy".

quote: I'd quite happily go with a dictionary definition actually because it would support my case rather than yours (given that Libertarians have queer ideas about coercion while normal people don't).

There you go again with your unsupported assertions about what libertarians think. Okay, since you'll accept the dictionary's definition of coercion, explain why a mugger threatening someone with violence does not fit the definition of coercion.

quote: This is a deliberate and fraudulent misrepresentation.

quote: Collective action problems are practical problems for Libertarian systems (esp for Randian systems). That's different from the inconsistency argument which is that commitment to liberty often requires us to violate it (something which pure libertarian systems don't allow).

Geez, can you translate that into an example? You said "prisoner's dilemmas" showed libertarianism is contradictory, so go ahead and provide one. The last time we went thru this you kept offering your PD's and I kept shooting them down and you ignored my rebuttals and went on to your next PD. Better yet, just start a thread with your proposition AND proof so all the libs here can address your concern. I promise to treat you with respect as long as you don't start another insult war like the last time.

quote: In fact, if you had followed that argument you would have seen that Lloyd put up a reasonable defence and managed to save his version from inconsistency.

I don't even know Lloyd.

quote: Unfortunately the price of doing that was reducing it to implausibility by making it basically religious morality without God. Kudos to him for arguing fairly though.

I ask for proof and I get references to God only knows who and what.

quote: There's no inconsistency in this position. If there is a problem with sexual harassment in a gym that can be good reason for women only gyms. Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for golf clubs. That's different from discriminating for racist or sexist reasons, which I have a problem with.

"Sexist" is how you continually described Augusta's policy and not one rational reason we offered could get you to admit there were non-sexist reasons for banning women. If some men harass women in gyms, that's grounds for banning those men, true? But no, you say that because "men are pigs", all men can be banned. So, since women on average are slower golfers, Augusta can use a generalisation to ban all women.

quote: If you had followed the way the argument context developed, instead of dredging up old posts from different contexts, you wouldn't have been so confused.

Where did I dredge up an old post and take it out of context? In the Augusta thread I responded only to your arguments for your proposition, not old threads and unrelated posts.

quote: And before you come up with some spurious objection: The position that women only gyms or men only golf clubs are permissible is an hypothetical imperative - that means it depends on the reason for it being a good reason.

But you want to be the one to decide which reasons are good or bad, not the people who have to live with your decisions. If women are allowed to be members at Augusta, you won't be the one spending 2 extra hours on the golf course stuck behind a train of elderly women hacking up the course.

quote: Both don't have to be consistent with each other depending on how the contingent facts turn out. Arguments based on fact (like Ming was offering) are going to be useful in this sort of debate.

Hmm...you said I was sucking up to the mods for mentioning your Augusta thread and now you applaud Ming? Are you sucking up now or applying a different standard?

quote: The position that discriminating for racist reasons is wrong is a categorical imperative (i.e. it's always wrong - and don't confuse this with "the" categorical imperative). No amount of physical facts is sufficient to argue with this claim - it has to be argued in terms of moral principles. Physical facts can only come in at the level of application, rather than justification.

Why is it racist for Augusta to ban women? Furthermore, while I agree racism is immoral, I also believe racism doesn't warrant the reaction you advocate - violence. Btw, even Jesse Jackson acknowledged feeling relief when he discovers the group of men walking behind him on a street are white. Is that "racist"?

quote: Your inability to understand this elementary point of logic is at the root of your problems.

Can you quote me saying racism is moral? If not, what does all that have to do with me?

quote: Now stop confusing the modalities of these statements and you might come up with a useful objection.

You haven't even shown I am "confusing" these "modalities".

	29-04-2003 07:38									#173
	Tired of ads?

Make it stop.

	29-04-2003 07:40									#174
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I learned long ago - the solution is not to read his posts

	29-04-2003 07:41									#175
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I wasn't aware that we were to site reasons why I just thought we should give the name........how did this happen?

	29-04-2003 07:45									#176
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Monkspider -

quote: Beserker has emotions such as anger and at least shows some signs of humanity.

Uh oh, where did I go wrong. Btw, I only get angry on rare occasions when people start in with the insults. I try to avoid insulting people as long as they do the same. I held my temper in the lottery debate quite well when GP practically used an insult to start or end every response.

quote: But I agree, Ethelred vs. Beserker, that would be a hell of a thing. I would even pay money to see that.

He wouldn't stand a chance.

	29-04-2003 07:52									#177
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tiamat I wasn't aware that we were to site reasons why I just thought we should give the name........how did this happen?

Yeah... I thought this was a thread to list people, and give reasons why, without ATTACKING or insulting the person... and to not use this thread to continue arguments from other threads...

So folks... let's get back to the purpose of this thread without having to read all the old arguments

	29-04-2003 07:56									#178
	Put an end to popups!

Purpose of this thread? What? Talking about our wives?

	29-04-2003 07:59									#179
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

**stamps foot like a petulant child** Oh Mingypooooo you take all the fun out of everything You mean I can't go back into the archives and stir up some shite all over again?!? And I was sOOOOOOOOoooooo looking forward to bringing up the past......oh poo

	29-04-2003 08:04									#180
	Put an end to popups!

What's the deal with you and poo Tiamat are you into using the strap on?