Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (521074)	10/16/2009 11:44:13 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577355

Mistake number 3 (childish gambit) is claiming I am building straw men as a response to me objecting to such tactics. And yes it is an example of your signature projection tactic, mistake number 4 (childish gambit) ”So? It is a debate. You don't necessarily need to support the side you are arguing for. Don't you know anything?” For the sake of precision and efficiency I am trying to avoid bird walks that take us off course. If you genuinely want your position considered by me and genuinely want to consider a counter position which I am ready to offer you would stay on track and be interested in what I have to offer, even if it is only so that you can dig into it with a sturdy critique. So far all I am seeing is communication blockades being thrown up. At this point I am simply trying to get you to lay out the position you have chosen in a clear fashion so that I don’t misinterpret or misrepresent your views when I comment on them. I have already said that if it helps you to fill in cracks you see (The ID thingy) go ahead. I just want to be clear that it has no bearing on my argument. >>>>My position on this topic is simple. I don't consider either of those opposing views to be adequate in explaining critical features of the universe and living things, at least when positioned as one view exclusive of the other. >>That was a contribution. Are you denying it now? That would be your MO... No. It is your mistake number 5 (childish gambit) to accuse me of denying something that I’ve asserted and already reaffirmed, and calling it my MO is another mistake number 6 (childish gambit). Post number 5206685 Message 26019602 …the anti-evolution crowd* to claim that evolution isn't falsifiable, but they were wrong.* >>>” "Your tangent about the 'anti-evolution crowd'* has nothing to do with my position."* >>>You put that in quotes. I never said such a thing. So you aren't quoting me. Who are you quoting here? Yes you did. See link above. You are mistaken though I doubt you will acknowledge it. Quibbling over what exactly is/was said is a childish gambit (mistake number 7) equal to claiming victory when you identify a typo or spelling errors. It can take up lots of bandwidth and interfere with genuine progress of topical discussion. I suspect complaints about spelling and typos are on your list down the road, wouldn’t be the first time. It is fair to remark on the gist of someone’s commentary as long as you don’t deliberately spin the meaning to misrepresent the other person’s comments (to misrepresent would be the straw man tactic). However what I put into quotes was exactly what you said. I’ve no idea why you are attempting to deny it. Here it is: Post number 5206685 Message 26019602 Your text… …the anti-evolution crowd* to claim that evolution isn't falsifiable, but they were wrong.* ========= "I'm not even sure that crowd is a real thing." Gotcha. So Tenchu and harris are lying about their beliefs. Gotchas are rarely real and usually expose childish insincerity in the person claiming them. Your mistake number, 8. I don’t speak for anyone but my self. As far as I know those two, who are not ‘my crowd’ do understand and except evolutionary science. Their beliefs do not deny evolutionary science as far as I’ve seen but you may be referring to something else like theoretical probabilities that have been hypothesized and associated with evolutionary science. I don’t know if that is what you mean because you still only suggest their beliefs oppose your argument but you haven’t come clean on what the conflict is. What is it they believe that you are arguing against? ” Umm, _less, this is an important part of the argument. Adding an ID with pretty much unlimited powers, after all such an entity has got to have the power to design and create organisms, is a key point of ID. It also removes it from the realm of science. If you don't understand that, then you are not really equipped to debate the issue from either side.” I’ve already said, ‘so what’ to this multiple times. You don’t know what I understand and what I am equipped to do since you haven’t considered any thoughts on the subject contributed by me, I haven’t begun yet. You continue to insist you know how or what I should be arguing and why or why not that is a valid argument, and if I wont use that argument then I don’t understand anything, which is ridiculous. You don’t get to formulate my argument for me and your insistence that you do exposes your lack of ability to engage in genuine discussion. Your job is to present your position and to be prepared to consider my position when it is presented. If you do anything else, and you are doing a lot of other things, it is just all evidence of childishness and wimping out before we even get started. Ok. So you have tossed in the towel. You want different rules. That is fine. You said debate, and that means certain things. Which, apparently, you are unwilling to accept. Different rules? I predicted you would wimp out and you just did. You never even had to consider a view point you hadn't already dismissed in the process. Congrats, on keeping your steel trap mind closed. You probably think that is protecting your self somehow. I always find it ironic how you science worshippers are afraid of discovering anything new.