- Time
- Post link
So the NK summit has been cancelled after the Supreme Leader got the good PR that he wanted.
Kim is probably pleased as well.
Hahahaha completely predictable.
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
So the NK summit has been cancelled after the Supreme Leader got the good PR that he wanted.
Kim is probably pleased as well.
Hahahaha completely predictable.
Have you ever once made a post where you just clearly state your position? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do it. This is a serious question by the way
That can’t actually be a serious question that is not rhetorical. Why would you expect anyone to say “no” if asked this question?
In either case, can we just move along now and stop debating debating the debate?
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
Have you ever once made a post where you just clearly state your position? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do it. This is a serious question by the way
That can’t actually be a serious question that is not rhetorical. Why would you expect anyone to say “no” if asked this question?
It’s in part rhetorical, but I am genuinely curious.
The Person in Question
If there is going to be some continued dialogue on this between you and Jay, that transition might be equally helpful.
There isn’t going to be continued dialogue. He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t want dialogue with me, and I don’t think he wanted it to begin with given how many of my points he outright ignored. I also don’t believe in conceding points to the other side if I don’t agree with them. A tactic of the right lately is to get the left to agree to disagree even when the left is correct.
Obviously it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with. Agreeing to disagree means you’re just putting a pin in something, and not conceding anything.
It depends on the subject. I agreed to disagree on Peterson’s justification of sexual harassment, for example.
Okay, so I’m not sure what your point was. I don’t see any tactic of the Right at work. It’s just a way of ending a particular contentious discourse.
For example, they’re trying to resurrect the climate change “debate.” There is no debate on man-made climate change. It’s a fact. Conceding points to the opposition is senseless and is actually dishonest when the opposition is factually incorrect.
Again, it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with, but it sounds like you’re totally resistant to debate if you feel certain of something - i.e. debating you would be like talking to a wall.
I’m resistant to debating things that aren’t up for debate. Like debating a flat-Earther.
Depends on your interest and goals. If the government was pushing a flat-Earth agenda and much of the population agreed, you might consider debating the matter to convince people.
You should concede points to the opposition when they make sense.
Of course, but not when they’re inconsistent with reality.
Obviously. But you can be wrong. And facts X,Y,Z may or may not add up to a certain conclusion. That’s what argument is all about.
It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.
You’re confusing facts and arguments.
Peterson is arguing against facts in that case.
That’s your argument. But he may be weighing facts differently and considering facts that you aren’t. I’m sure you’ve had the experience of conceding a fact and saying, yeah, but there are these other facts, considerations, context, etc.
The blue elephant in the room.
This current discussion is very meta.
moviefreakedmind said:
It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.You’re confusing facts and arguments.
Peterson is arguing against facts in that case.
That’s your argument. But he may be weighing facts differently and considering facts that you aren’t. I’m sure you’ve had the experience of conceding a fact and saying, yeah, but there are these other facts, considerations, context, etc.
No it isn’t. He is wrong on this. He says that Christian morality and a Christian worldview is a necessity for people to not rape and murder and steal, but crime rates are universally lower in secular states compared to religious states. This is true all throughout the developed world. Peterson’s argument in this case is anti-fact. It is. He’s 100% wrong, and to claim that he’s just got some context or different way of weighing facts is just giving credibility to a position that is at odds with reality.
The Person in Question
Trump hates national security:
The Person in Question
Trump hates national security:
Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .
By the way, what happened to this?
It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.
Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.
Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.
This makes absolutely no sense.
I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto.
Well why not just say that?
Have you just met Mrebo? He delights in not just saying things.
That’s true. Plus I obviously wasn’t being a wall in that conversation, though I think I might just go back to being a wall because no distinction is made between real discourse and being a wall.
Frink is no less adept at not just saying things, preferring sarcasm and interjections that miss the point.
I don’t like to debate the debate. In the debate itself my posts were all very direct. You making post after post about Jay not engaging with you didn’t merit the same seriousness.
The funny thing is that I was actually engaging him in most of those posts about him not engaging me, not you.
So what? This is a public forum.
Have you ever once made a post where you just clearly state your position? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do it. This is a serious question by the way, I really don’t I’ve ever seen you put forth your position in a straightforward manner.
Go read any post of mine in the last several pages on Peterson and all that. Tell me where something was not straightforward. You didn’t express confusion on any of those posts so it’s weird now to pretend that you didn’t understand.
Maybe it will help if you ask a straightforward question. What do you want to know?
The blue elephant in the room.
Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .
By the way, what happened to this?
It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.
Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.
Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.
This makes absolutely no sense.
I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto.
Well why not just say that?
Have you just met Mrebo? He delights in not just saying things.
That’s true. Plus I obviously wasn’t being a wall in that conversation, though I think I might just go back to being a wall because no distinction is made between real discourse and being a wall.
Frink is no less adept at not just saying things, preferring sarcasm and interjections that miss the point.
I don’t like to debate the debate. In the debate itself my posts were all very direct. You making post after post about Jay not engaging with you didn’t merit the same seriousness.
The funny thing is that I was actually engaging him in most of those posts about him not engaging me, not you.
So what? This is a public forum.
Your post made it seem like I wasn’t engaged with him and was just posting repeatedly to no response.
The Person in Question
moviefreakedmind said:
It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.You’re confusing facts and arguments.
Peterson is arguing against facts in that case.
That’s your argument. But he may be weighing facts differently and considering facts that you aren’t. I’m sure you’ve had the experience of conceding a fact and saying, yeah, but there are these other facts, considerations, context, etc.
No it isn’t. He is wrong on this. He says that Christian morality and a Christian worldview is a necessity for people to not rape and murder and steal, but crime rates are universally lower in secular states compared to religious states. This is true all throughout the developed world. Peterson’s argument in this case is anti-fact. It is. He’s 100% wrong, and to claim that he’s just got some context or different way of weighing facts is just giving credibility to a position that is at odds with reality.
I only have your 2nd or 3rd hand description of his argument so I can’t really know. I can think of additional considerations that could cut both ways even assuming you are accurately describing his argument, such as overcriminalization and over/under-reporting.
We can’t get very far debating an issue in this way.
The blue elephant in the room.
It’s all over the internet in his own words if you care to listen to Peterson speak, which is incredibly boring, but if you can stomach it give it a shot.
The Person in Question
I am reminded of debates about Poe v Holdo. Poe had certain facts on his side that indicated he was clearly right. Holdo had one fact he didn’t know. What she knew didn’t mean she was incontrovertibly right. More right than Poe perhaps, but I think illustrates the difference between facts and arguments.
The blue elephant in the room.
In the landmark Supreme Court case of Poe v Holdo…
So what are they going to do with a warehouse full of these prematurely minted turds? Which probably used taxpayer dollars to mint…
At least with Susan B. Anthony and Sacajawea coins you could actually spend those.
And I can’t believe I spelled Sacajawea right on the first try!
Where were you in '77?
In the landmark Supreme Court case of Poe v Holdo…
Ginsburg’s opinion was AMAZING.
The blue elephant in the room.
Hey, I almost met you, and this crazy, but here’s my number, call me maybe?
Where were you in '77?
Why would he sign something long on commas and short on uppercase letters?
You should concede points to the opposition when they make sense.
Good luck with that one on this site.
Purely symbolic, but credit where it’s due.
The Person in Question
All the North Korea stuff is theater. It wouldn’t be a negotiation if both parties involved didn’t pull out at least once.
Watching it play out and judging it based on daily successes and failures is like watching your stock portfolio go up and down every day.
MTFBWY…A
All the North Korea stuff is theater. It wouldn’t be a negotiation if both parties involved didn’t pull out at least once.
Watching it play out and judging it based on daily successes and failures is like watching your stock portfolio go up and down every day.
Unfortunately this is probably true.
Until they actually meet, NK has done nothing different than they’ve done a bunch of times before. The only difference so far is that the President said yes.
NK has always been trying to meet with US leaders. Trump is just the first to legitimize the Kim regime with an offer to meet.
The Person in Question
Until they actually meet, NK has done nothing different than they’ve done a bunch of times before. The only difference so far is that the President said yes.
You mean aside from dismantling a nuclear test site, which satellite imagery shows they’re doing?
Maybe 25 years of doing basically nothing got us…basically nothing. Other than a North Korean nuclear weapons program, of course.
The negotiations will continue. I wouldn’t be surprised if these “cancellations” were prearranged.
MTFBWY…A