Prejudicial Dismissal and Declarations of Irrelevance

[XDU]

Well, you claimed 'nobody' converses rationally in the manner you described as desirable. Nobody means no one--including yourself. So, you've now made an universal claim that applies to the hundreds/thousands of posters across this site, and imputes yourself in the process.

The way I see it you now have two paths forward:

1. You provide evidence to support your universal generalization, as a matter of rational discourse.

2. We take your statement at face value, which imputes you as part of the problem, and start by having you explain why you're not debating rationally. If we can work together to "fix" you first, then perhaps we'll have developed a roadmap for improving the quality of discourse for everyone.

Which do you prefer?

I prefer you realize that was clearly figurative language due to the succinctness of the discussion at that point in time.

A more accurate portrayal would have been, "There is no reliable protection against this happening by anyone," but who talks like that?

 

[JasperL]

...except evidence isn't the point.

You can have rational conversations by discussing the meanings of words and how they must be defined in certain ways for ideas to make sense. The problem here is nobody wants to do that.

It actually is. You say, "You guys really seem to have an addiction to just dismissing arguments out of hand here for seeming disagreeable, and claiming points are irrelevant just because they explain themselves in a direction you didn't expect."

How can we "guys" address this claim? You've offered no examples, you've just broad brushed "you guys" and are whining because unnamed persons in unnamed discussions dismissed unnamed arguments made by you. So what do you expect to come of this? You say we guys have an "addiction" but offer us no examples so we can examine this asserted 'addiction' that you want addressed.

I addressed your point on the merits as I've seen them, but a perhaps more rational response would be to ignore baseless claims like you made in the OP.

 

[mike2810]

I'm suggesting words have multiple meanings. Not only in dictionaries do words often have multiple meanings listed for them, but definitions are often vague since everything isn't technically defined.

More importantly, words are defined in context of other words, and those words have multiple and vague meanings which creates a compound problem.

So you want words to mean as you define them. Got it.

 

[XDU]

OK, I've responded to two of your claims in other threads. The first was that Trump was a Democrat at one time, which is true. He was also a reform party member, and a republican, then a democrat, then Republican. So he was whatever he decided he was when he woke up that morning, and what he believed served his interests at that time. He's certainly not ever been anything like a 'leader' of the Democratic party - at best an occasional member of it who sometimes donated when doing so might have advanced his interests. That's fine, but no one ever looked to Trump about the Democratic party's position on anything, any more than they prior to 2016 looked to him about where the Republican party stood on anything. So you made a point - he was a Democrat - but what you didn't say is why that matters to anything, when in this reality he is, as we sit here, the de facto head of the GOP.

You also pointed out that the birther claims originated with someone apparently on the Hillary side who started a baseless rumor. Again, why does this matter? It's not a defense of Trump's actions on the issue, so if it's not an attempt to sidestep his own actions with a bogus butwhatabout, why do we care?

So dismissing those points isn't a prejudicial declaration of irrelevance, it's a rational dismissal of the relevance and it's because you can demonstrate no relevance for your point. Those are different things.

This is a feedback thread, not somewhere to actively discuss ongoing discussions, least of all ones that you're personally involved with.

 

[JMB802]

Concerned people often recognize an issue is a problem before evidence of the problem is gathered. The point is to share their concern as soon as possible to minimize the time something is going on.

So, do you think it's okay for a person to be a hypocrite if they "think" they're in the right?

 

[XDU]

It actually is. You say, "You guys really seem to have an addiction to just dismissing arguments out of hand here for seeming disagreeable, and claiming points are irrelevant just because they explain themselves in a direction you didn't expect."

How can we "guys" address this claim? You've offered no examples, you've just broad brushed "you guys" and are whining because unnamed persons in unnamed discussions dismissed unnamed arguments made by you. So what do you expect to come of this? You say we guys have an "addiction" but offer us no examples so we can examine this asserted 'addiction' that you want addressed.

I addressed your point on the merits as I've seen them, but a perhaps more rational response would be to ignore baseless claims like you made in the OP.

"You guys" doesn't mean everyone has the problem. It means there's a contaminating presence within the population.

It's like saying a water supply is polluted. Does that mean every particle in the supply is bonded to pollution?

 

[Rogue Valley]

I'm suggesting words have multiple meanings.

You are reminding me of Kellyanne Conway and her sophomoric "alternative truths" workaround.

 

[XDU]

You are reminding me of Kellyanne Conway and her sophomoric "alternative truths" workaround.

If someone says "blue" that doesn't mean the same hue of blue comes to everyone's mind.

Some consider royal blue, cerulean, midnight blue, robin eggs blue, sky blue, cadet blue, or any other numbers of blue.

 

[JasperL]

This is a feedback thread, not somewhere to actively discuss ongoing discussions, least of all ones that you're personally involved with.

OK, I'll be direct then. You've made no argument anyone can address. You've been here four days, and start a thread with ZERO examples, to whine how others are debating you. What are we supposed to do to address ????????

That's my feedback. If you don't like how people are debating, be a grown up and address it in the thread. Don't whine for the moderators to change a rule to address this ?????? example of conduct you don't like. If the examples I gave are not relevant, point us to an example that is relevant in your opinion.

If not, no one cares about your whining.

 

[JasperL]

"You guys" doesn't mean everyone has the problem. It means there's a contaminating presence within the population.

You do understand, I hope, that if you say there's a "contaminating presence" the burden is yours to show this. We can't read your mind. We can't make your argument or address this ??????? problem for you when we have no idea what you're talking about because you refuse to offer any specifics.

It's like saying a water supply is polluted. Does that mean every particle in the supply is bonded to pollution?

No, but if you say the "water supply" is "polluted," and offer zero evidence of any pollution, or the extent, or with what, who will care about your claim the water is polluted? No one rational, actually, because you've not met the lowest bar of any burden that would cause anyone to care.

 

[bluesmoke]

The OP has lulled the forum into a philosophical discussion where claims made do not require evidence of fact to support veracity but for the adroit ability of the OP to avoid evidence/fact-based debate by arguing in the context of nothing more than the logic of philosophy. AKA "Mind-F"

 

[Jetboogieman]

Moderator's Warning:

Thread locked