D.T.W.A.

[natty dread]

of course they ignore strong arguments against their positions. everyone does. i do, from time to time. cognitive dissonance feels bad. but at least they make an effort to respond to people in a serious manner. many people don't even give others enough respect to do that, which just proves that they don't have a clue what they are talking about. this is why i'm relatively tolerant of player... even though she's flat-out wrong sometimes and i think some of the things she says are ridiculous, she at least tries to debate (mostly) civilly.

The thing is, most people in this thread have been debating very reasonably and raising very strong arguments against NS & PS. When one person comes along and responds to some absurd thing NS posts with laughter, you immediately jump up in arms and claim "the liberals don't know how to debate". That's intellectually dishonest, which makes it sort of ironic when your complaint is that others are not debating honestly.

[Iliad]

According to john, intellectual dishonesty is not a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Mocking it apparently is.

The thing about arguing with Nighstrike and Phatscotty is that they're much more efficient. Scotty for example can post a meaningless cliche about liberty and freedom and try and to completely simplify complex issues. You can post a short essay explaining that he is wrong. Scotty will at that point simply ignore that and post a different meaningless cliche. Thus just like I can point out the fallacies and logical leaps and assumed conclusions that they make by writing a long, thought out response I can also mock it with humour.

I'm sorry but if Phatscotty or Nightstrike manage to post something mind numbingly stupid, I will proceed to mock them just as if they posted something deep and profound I would respect them more.

And the final point is that humour ins't some kind of white flag of arguments. In many cases the use of humour or sarcasm is much more logical and intellectually honest than arguments made in this thread. Not that I'll point fingers or anything.

Get off your high horse john and get your hate boner for Colbert and Stewart checked out, it's pretty disturbing.

[PLAYER57832]

There is a reason why the oldtime court Jesters were sometimes the only ones able to speak truths... and that can still hold true.
If you area clear on taking things with a "grain of salt", you can get as much of the news for Colbert and Saturday Night Live some times as anywhere else. And... humour is better than throwing things or shooting people, any day.

[john9blue]

According to john, intellectual dishonesty is not a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Mocking it apparently is.

The thing about arguing with Nighstrike and Phatscotty is that they're much more efficient. Scotty for example can post a meaningless cliche about liberty and freedom and try and to completely simplify complex issues. You can post a short essay explaining that he is wrong. Scotty will at that point simply ignore that and post a different meaningless cliche. Thus just like I can point out the fallacies and logical leaps and assumed conclusions that they make by writing a long, thought out response I can also mock it with humour.

I'm sorry but if Phatscotty or Nightstrike manage to post something mind numbingly stupid, I will proceed to mock them just as if they posted something deep and profound I would respect them more.

And the final point is that humour ins't some kind of white flag of arguments. In many cases the use of humour or sarcasm is much more logical and intellectually honest than arguments made in this thread. Not that I'll point fingers or anything.

Get off your high horse john and get your hate boner for Colbert and Stewart checked out, it's pretty disturbing.

give me a fucking break. if you were raised with the same values as scotty and night strike, you would respond to their one-liners like so:

or maybe

couldn't have said it better myself

or some other meaningless tripe.

and laughing at the arguments of others isn't some intellectually noble gesture; >90% of the time, laughter without a serious response is the backup response when somebody can't think of anything more intelligent.

what i see here is both sides not addressing each other in a serious way. you are both responding sarcastically/humorously/pithily to one another, then using the other side's sarcastic/humorous/pithy response to justify your own. it's pathetic.

According to john, intellectual dishonesty is not a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Mocking it apparently is.

mocking it is intellectual dishonesty. mocking the mockery is also intellectual dishonesty. get it now?

[Phatscotty]

We could argue all day with NS and Phatscotty on things they don't clearly understand, but ultimately it's a waste of time because they won't concede on certain points when clearly they are in the wrong, and they willingly ignore strong points that counter their own beliefs.

clearly they are wrong! i mean, it's so obvious. every liberal on the forum agrees that they're wrong. what more proof do i need? the debate is over, isn't it?

Not sure there are too many liberals in this forum, but plenty of non liberals disagree with them.

Anyway, what does it matter if those who disagree are liberal, conservative or "raxian photo observers". What matters is are their arguments sound and why do so many disagree. Those two far too often simply ignore any real and credible challenges to their beliefs. Most people might do that on occasion.. by mistake if for no other reason (you get asked a question, but get busy and the thread moves on or disappears). They make a habit of it.

The majority is clearly wrong then.

For me, it all comes down to this. When you have to live under someone else's roof, and that person takes you into their care, you have to play by their rules. They are not going to let you party away your rent money, or you're out. They aren't going to let you have your heroin needles laying all over the place and blood squirts on the ceiling. They might not even let you watch their TV, and probably no loud music too late on work-nights etc.

Of course, the down on their luck person can listen to their music however loud they want whenever they want, but not while you are in their house as a dependent. You can do whatever drugs you want, but not while you are living in someone else's house. You already get to grab whatever food you want for free, and you even get a chunk of money free every month while you are down on your luck. But when you are being cared for, the person who does the caring is going to make the rules. You might want to let the down on their lucker keep playing by their own rules, when really what needs to be said is "look where your rules got you."

Otherwise it isn't really caring, it's just enabling.

[PLAYER57832]

No, the real truth is this program is not about helping drug dependent people OR the taxpayers. There are far more effective methods to help those on drugs. This program won't save taxpayers money.

It WILL make those invested in the testing company money... and that's it.

The truth is also that we have shown you all sorts of data illustrating this, but you have not bothered to acknowledge most of it. You began by insisting that these tests would only cost $14...then declared that there were free clinics for drug rehab in every county in Florida (and implying it was like that everywhere), and have utterly mistated both the numbers of people on welfare who use illicite drugs, the types of drugs they use and the impact they have. You gloss over talk of what will really happen when people are out with no money on top of other problems. (and no, its not as simple as "get off drugs you go back on".. you lose benefits for a YEAR). On top of this, you completely ignore the part where anyone applying for aid gets tested.. not just those already getting it ANd that they have to pay for it upfront. IF they qualify, then they will get refunded in their check. If for some reason, they don't qualify (not to do with drugs!), then they not only don't get benefits, they are out the $55.

[natty dread]

give me a fucking break. if you were raised with the same values as scotty and night strike, you would respond to their one-liners like so:

First of all, you should consider that you don't necessarily have to live by the values you were raised with. You can actually question the values your parents taught you. You should try it.

and laughing at the arguments of others isn't some intellectually noble gesture; >90% of the time, laughter without a serious response is the backup response when somebody can't think of anything more intelligent.

At what point do we have to indulge every idiotic argument with a proper refutation? When a raving lunatic comes over foaming at the mouth that everyone is secretly reptoids or whatever, will you spend your valuable time comprehensively explaining to him how there's no actual proof of that kind of thing being even theoretically possible, or will you just ask if he has any more of whatever it is he's been smoking? (personally, I'd go for the latter.)

what i see here is both sides not addressing each other in a serious way. you are both responding sarcastically/humorously/pithily to one another, then using the other side's sarcastic/humorous/pithy response to justify your own. it's pathetic.

Actually, you're just doing exactly what you do: bashing both sides of the debate to make yourself feel superior to both - while not having any original thoughts of your own to contribute to the actual debate, but hey, nobody's perfect, right?

[GreecePwns]

and laughing at the arguments of others isn't some intellectually noble gesture; >90% of the time, laughter without a serious response is the backup response when somebody can't think of anything more intelligent.

what i see here is both sides not addressing each other in a serious way. you are both responding sarcastically/humorously/pithily to one another, then using the other side's sarcastic/humorous/pithy response to justify your own. it's pathetic.

Stop talking to yourself. You say your political views are so misunderstood, yet you make no effort to actually say what they are.

[Phatscotty]

Natty is a child. Give her a break and take her advice. Do lots of drugs, question the values that your creators instilled in you, and if it feels good do it.

[GreecePwns]

Point to where Natty said everyone should do lots of drugs.

question the values that your creators instilled in you

Once again, Scotty shows his inner fascist.

[Phatscotty]

Point to where Natty said everyone should do lots of drugs.

question the values that your creators instilled in you

Once again, Scotty shows his inner fascist.

HAHAHA, you doubt she said that? First, before I either pull it up or she comes in and admits it, please tell me, why do you doubt she said that?

I don't even know where my inner values or beliefs come into me quoting something Natty said.

[Iliad]

Natty is a child. Give her a break and take her advice. Do lots of drugs, question the values that your creators instilled in you, and if it feels good do it.

Firstly, not sure why you think Natty is female or a child.

Secondly it does very much look like you're trying to condone questioning the values that you have been originally taught by comparing to doing drugs and only seeking pleasure in life. Seems like a very odd comparison.

[Phatscotty]

Natty is a child. Give her a break and take her advice. Do lots of drugs, question the values that your creators instilled in you, and if it feels good do it.

Firstly, not sure why you think Natty is female or a child.

Secondly it does very much look like you're trying to condone questioning the values that you have been originally taught by comparing to doing drugs and only seeking pleasure in life. Seems like a very odd comparison.

I didn't compare shit. Just a list of bad advice IMO

[Iliad]

Natty is a child. Give her a break and take her advice. Do lots of drugs, question the values that your creators instilled in you, and if it feels good do it.

Firstly, not sure why you think Natty is female or a child.

Secondly it does very much look like you're trying to condone questioning the values that you have been originally taught by comparing to doing drugs and only seeking pleasure in life. Seems like a very odd comparison.

I didn't compare shit. Just a list of bad advice IMO

And there it is! Really phatscotty, some of these days it just feels like you don't even try.

Questioning the values that you have been taught is bad advice? In your opinion, being able to critically evaluate lessons given to you and reach your own conclusions rather than blindly accepting what others say, is bad advice?

You know I think I've uncovered the root of all of our differences.

[GreecePwns]

Natty is a child. Give her a break and take her advice. Do lots of drugs, question the values that your creators instilled in you, and if it feels good do it.

Firstly, not sure why you think Natty is female or a child.

Secondly it does very much look like you're trying to condone questioning the values that you have been originally taught by comparing to doing drugs and only seeking pleasure in life. Seems like a very odd comparison.

I didn't compare shit. Just a list of bad advice IMO

And there it is! Really phatscotty, some of these days it just feels like you don't even try.

Questioning the values that you have been taught is bad advice? In your opinion, being able to critically evaluate lessons given to you and reach your own conclusions rather than blindly accepting what others say, is bad advice?

You know I think I've uncovered the root of all of our differences.

Keep what you got. The founding fathers said so.

[Americanflagbehindastatueofliberty.png]
[ThomasJefferson.jpg]
[Eagle.bmp]

[Phatscotty]

Natty is a child. Give her a break and take her advice. Do lots of drugs, question the values that your creators instilled in you, and if it feels good do it.

Firstly, not sure why you think Natty is female or a child.

Secondly it does very much look like you're trying to condone questioning the values that you have been originally taught by comparing to doing drugs and only seeking pleasure in life. Seems like a very odd comparison.

I didn't compare shit. Just a list of bad advice IMO

And there it is! Really phatscotty, some of these days it just feels like you don't even try.

Questioning the values that you have been taught is bad advice? In your opinion, being able to critically evaluate lessons given to you and reach your own conclusions rather than blindly accepting what others say, is bad advice?

You know I think I've uncovered the root of all of our differences.

Overreaching much?

Questioning is always good yes. That is the very reason I come here and argue with people who take the opposite position, to make sure I'm right!

But that's not what he said. He said "you should try it sometime" If you're gonna question values, it should only be when you genuinely have a real question, not because someone else told you to try it. That results in questioning the first example, whether it should be questioned or not.

[john9blue]

First of all, you should consider that you don't necessarily have to live by the values you were raised with. You can actually question the values your parents taught you. You should try it.

by "raised with" i don't mean "the values that your parents taught you". people's outlook on life is (for the most part) foundationally set by the time they're 20 or so. childhood years are the most influential; try to change someone's opinions after they grow up, and you get the conquer club forums, a.k.a. dismal failure.

At what point do we have to indulge every idiotic argument with a proper refutation? When a raving lunatic comes over foaming at the mouth that everyone is secretly reptoids or whatever, will you spend your valuable time comprehensively explaining to him how there's no actual proof of that kind of thing being even theoretically possible, or will you just ask if he has any more of whatever it is he's been smoking? (personally, I'd go for the latter.)

the crazier the argument, the easier it should be to reasonably dismiss it. i don't see reasonable dismissals.

Actually, you're just doing exactly what you do: bashing both sides of the debate to make yourself feel superior to both - while not having any original thoughts of your own to contribute to the actual debate, but hey, nobody's perfect, right?

i thought i was on scotty's side? am i not on a side now? which one is it??

and laughing at the arguments of others isn't some intellectually noble gesture; >90% of the time, laughter without a serious response is the backup response when somebody can't think of anything more intelligent.

what i see here is both sides not addressing each other in a serious way. you are both responding sarcastically/humorously/pithily to one another, then using the other side's sarcastic/humorous/pithy response to justify your own. it's pathetic.

Stop talking to yourself. You say your political views are so misunderstood, yet you make no effort to actually say what they are.

i do talk about them. not in this thread though, because both sides of the issue have merit, and i have neither personal experience nor expertise on the subject at hand (welfare/drugs) so i'm not participating, just calling out intellectual dishonesty when i see it. is that ok with you, or would you rather i take a side and start bashing the people who don't agree with me? that's a lot more fun, isn't it?

[Phatscotty]

At what point do we have to indulge every idiotic argument with a proper refutation? When a raving lunatic comes over foaming at the mouth that everyone is secretly reptoids or whatever, will you spend your valuable time comprehensively explaining to him how there's no actual proof of that kind of thing being even theoretically possible, or will you just ask if he has any more of whatever it is he's been smoking? (personally, I'd go for the latter.)

You sure have spent a lot of time indulging this thread, all the while including zero substance and a lot of context dropping. Probably the most idiotic of all arguing thus far...how intelligent is it to call people names and put other words in their mouths that they never said and isn't even close to the matter at hand?

[Iliad]

Natty is a child. Give her a break and take her advice. Do lots of drugs, question the values that your creators instilled in you, and if it feels good do it.

Firstly, not sure why you think Natty is female or a child.

Secondly it does very much look like you're trying to condone questioning the values that you have been originally taught by comparing to doing drugs and only seeking pleasure in life. Seems like a very odd comparison.

I didn't compare shit. Just a list of bad advice IMO

And there it is! Really phatscotty, some of these days it just feels like you don't even try.

Questioning the values that you have been taught is bad advice? In your opinion, being able to critically evaluate lessons given to you and reach your own conclusions rather than blindly accepting what others say, is bad advice?

You know I think I've uncovered the root of all of our differences.

Overreaching much?

Questioning is always good yes. That is the very reason I come here and argue with people who take the opposite position, to make sure I'm right!

But that's not what he said. He said "you should try it sometime" If you're gonna question values, it should only be when you genuinely have a real question, not because someone else told you to try it. That results in questioning the first example, whether it should be questioned or not.

Overreaching? You clearly and unequivocally said that questioning your values is bad advice.

Only now you're trying to force some context into it, which I originally asked for, and that questioning values is only bad when someone asks you to do it. But you contradict yourself in your desperate attempt to backpedal as you also say that questioning is always good.So either questioning is always good or questioning because someone asked you to is bad.

Regardless it is ridiculously semantic, questioning values is good but the reason you said it is bad advice and akin to taking drugs is because someone else suggested it? Very different from what you specifically said about critical thinking.

One last thing.
Do you really consider posts like these to be logical and thought out arguments?

Can't imagine why anyone driving a car would NOT want to use a seat belt.

Its not about wanting to use a seatbelt or not wanting to use a seatbelt.

It's about wanting a limited gov't and not wanting a nanny state.

[Phatscotty]

telling someone to try it is horrible advice. Not to mention, the way she said it, implied to me "don't listen to your parents" cuz ya know, Natty is just thug like that

again, it should only be questioned when the person who is getting the advice has a legitimate intention, otherwise you are just pissing off the person trying to help you. amirite?

I have no desire to split hairs about a comment someone else made, which of course, had nothing to with with the thread. Here we go...



deeper and deeper

I agree with you about one thing, the semantics are getting ridiculous.

[Phatscotty]

Natty is a child. Give her a break and take her advice. Do lots of drugs, question the values that your creators instilled in you, and if it feels good do it.

Firstly, not sure why you think Natty is female or a child.

Secondly it does very much look like you're trying to condone questioning the values that you have been originally taught by comparing to doing drugs and only seeking pleasure in life. Seems like a very odd comparison.

I didn't compare shit. Just a list of bad advice IMO

And there it is! Really phatscotty, some of these days it just feels like you don't even try.

Questioning the values that you have been taught is bad advice? In your opinion, being able to critically evaluate lessons given to you and reach your own conclusions rather than blindly accepting what others say, is bad advice?

You know I think I've uncovered the root of all of our differences.

Keep what you got. The founding fathers said so.

[Americanflagbehindastatueofliberty.png]
[ThomasJefferson.jpg]
[Eagle.bmp]

Abe Lincoln actually. Something to do with slavery and the overall act of taking the fruit of peoples labor.

[Iliad]

telling someone to try it is horrible advice. Not to mention, the way she said it, implied to me "don't listen to your parents" cuz ya know, Natty is just thug like that

again, it should only be questioned when the person who is getting the advice has a legitimate intention, otherwise you are just pissing off the person trying to help you. amirite?

I have no desire to split hairs about a comment someone else made, which of course, had nothing to with with the thread. Here we go...

deeper and deeper

I agree with you about one thing, the semantics are getting ridiculous.

But the thing is, you brought the semantics into it, retroactively.

I didn't jump on your comments after you compared thinking critically to taking drugs because that was ridiculous even for you. When given the opportunity to explain you however simply called it bad advice. It was only after I called you out on this that you inserted this narrative that questioning values when prompted is apparently wrong. It's you who's using these semantics and frankly fairly weak attempts to justify you calling critical thinking bad advice.

The fact that you see critical thinking as irresponsible childish behaviour is really quite illuminating.

Also for the second time, where are you getting that natty is female and a child?

[Woodruff]

According to john, intellectual dishonesty is not a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Mocking it apparently is.

mocking it is intellectual dishonesty. mocking the mockery is also intellectual dishonesty. get it now?

Yes, I've got it now...you're intellectually dishonest. But at least it has nothing to do with mockery...unless you're trying to make a mockery of intellectual integrity.

[Woodruff]

We could argue all day with NS and Phatscotty on things they don't clearly understand, but ultimately it's a waste of time because they won't concede on certain points when clearly they are in the wrong, and they willingly ignore strong points that counter their own beliefs.

clearly they are wrong! i mean, it's so obvious. every liberal on the forum agrees that they're wrong. what more proof do i need? the debate is over, isn't it?

Not sure there are too many liberals in this forum, but plenty of non liberals disagree with them.

Anyway, what does it matter if those who disagree are liberal, conservative or "raxian photo observers". What matters is are their arguments sound and why do so many disagree. Those two far too often simply ignore any real and credible challenges to their beliefs. Most people might do that on occasion.. by mistake if for no other reason (you get asked a question, but get busy and the thread moves on or disappears). They make a habit of it.

The majority is clearly wrong then.

For me, it all comes down to this. When you have to live under someone else's roof, and that person takes you into their care, you have to play by their rules. They are not going to let you party away your rent money, or you're out. They aren't going to let you have your heroin needles laying all over the place and blood squirts on the ceiling. They might not even let you watch their TV, and probably no loud music too late on work-nights etc.

Of course, the down on their luck person can listen to their music however loud they want whenever they want, but not while you are in their house as a dependent. You can do whatever drugs you want, but not while you are living in someone else's house. You already get to grab whatever food you want for free, and you even get a chunk of money free every month while you are down on your luck. But when you are being cared for, the person who does the caring is going to make the rules. You might want to let the down on their lucker keep playing by their own rules, when really what needs to be said is "look where your rules got you."

Otherwise it isn't really caring, it's just enabling.

But you DON'T care and you ARE enabling. It's just that you're trying to ignore those that you're enabling and you only want to focus on the poor.

[Woodruff]

Natty is a child. Give her a break and take her advice. Do lots of drugs, question the values that your creators instilled in you, and if it feels good do it.

More lies by Phatscotty. See where the intellectual integrity is, John?