Has everyone already forgotten Question Mark?

[zipman]

I've posted the links to it.

Now, show me the "Gray" area you've found in my philosophy, or can you now not even answer your own challenge?

__________________

I already did it a few posts but you conveniently ignored it.

Now see, quoting the ordinality post is actually ad hominem.

Nobody does it as well as you do, Cap'n Hypocrite. You take hypocrisy and ad hominem to a new level.

 

[off2bed]

What I'm seeing in the zipster's posts is, only the left is allowed to use nuance. He's so stuck on the stupid idea that RWers are ONLY black and white thinkers, that he believes nuance is the left's birthright; it's in their DNA but not ours.

But as I said, most lefties only hide behind the word nuance because they are utterly terrified to take a moral stance on anything. That might imply they have religious thoughts, and if that happened they'd be kicked out of the Fellow Travelers Club. Nuance lets them slither through any argument straight into left field like a greased pig.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I already did it a few posts but you conveniently ignored it.

Now see, quoting the ordinality post is actually ad hominem.

Nobody does it as well as you do, Cap'n Hypocrite. You take hypocrisy and ad hominem to a new level.

Then requote it.

I went back and requoted you to show why I could not answer your charge because of all the ascriptions, contradictions, and lack of clarity, so clarify it, if that is even possible, because I kinda tuned you out after:

You say your views are black and white and then you twist them using pretzel logic and nuance to prove the opposite.

What you post just doesn't make logical sense. You make up terms and twist the meanings as you go along, all to substantiate your hatred.

I'm not your enemy, the person looking back at you in the mirror is.

I think what you wanted to say was you use the terms in a different manner and then pretend not to understand a word I say, yet you somehow always manage to come across as the guy who thinks he's two-steps ahead in the smart lane...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

What I'm seeing in the zipster's posts is, only the left is allowed to use nuance. He's so stuck on the stupid idea that RWers are ONLY black and white thinkers, that he believes nuance is the left's birthright; it's in their DNA but not ours.

But as I said, most lefties only hide behind the word nuance because they are utterly terrified to take a moral stance on anything. That might imply they have religious thoughts, and if that happened they'd be kicked out of the Fellow Travelers Club. Nuance lets them slither through any argument straight into left field like a greased pig.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[zipman]

What I'm seeing in the zipster's posts is, only the left is allowed to use nuance. He's so stuck on the stupid idea that RWers are ONLY black and white thinkers, that he believes nuance is the left's birthright; it's in their DNA but not ours.

But as I said, most lefties only hide behind the word nuance because they are utterly terrified to take a moral stance on anything. That might imply they have religious thoughts, and if that happened they'd be kicked out of the Fellow Travelers Club. Nuance lets them slither through any argument straight into left field like a greased pig.

No what A_J calls nuance is really just context. The world isn't black and white (as A_J himself proudly proclaimed). That's the land of extremism, you know, the thing you complain about when others do it.

This has nothing to do with DNA. It has to do with claiming one thing and then using the opposite in your arguments, which is exactly what A_J was doing. Saying everything is black and white is a stupid comment that is unsupportable.

Of course if you want to try and defend his comment, feel free. It's easy to pick apart using logic and examples.

 

[zipman]

Then requote it.

I went back and requoted you to show why I could not answer your charge because of all the ascriptions, contradictions, and lack of clarity, so clarify it, if that is even possible, because I kinda tuned you out after:



I think what you wanted to say was you use the terms in a different manner and then pretend not to understand a word I say, yet you somehow always manage to come across as the guy who thinks he's two-steps ahead in the smart lane...

Post #212 in this thread. All you have to do is go back one page at most.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Actually I already have. Let's start with your initial statement:



Perhaps your problem is that you don't understand the meaning of the word "everything." [1] Everything is an absolute and saying Everything is black and white is also an absolute. There is no possibility for deviation from it. Well, except to you because then you begin to nuance this position at the same time as saying you aren't.

I used killing as an example and your first reaction was to nuance that by asking if I meant killing or murder. Murder is a subset of killing and you were desperately trying to get to a more "nuanced" gray position. When I clarified I was speaking of killing you said:



Again, you are trying to get to the gray area which is in direct contrast to your view that Everything is black and white. But your next response was even better:



Do you not see that saying "The State should never take the life of a citizen." is completely contradicted by the very next sentence you typed which was "It should have no hesitation in taking the lives of clear and present dangers to the state and hence its citizens" [2]

That's not black and white at all. That's completely gray due to the fact that you are using context to differentiate when killing is okay and when it is not.

Maybe American Thinker uses a different definition of "everything" than the rest of the world.

[1] I know what I said and I meant what I said. I asked you about killing and murder because they have two different definitions and I wanted you to be more precise in what you were saying so that I would not have to suffer through your nuancing of the stone.

[2] No, none at all. What happened to your NUANCE? The State's duty is to PROTECT its citizens, not to kill them either directly or by its inactions (as in the lead-up to 9-11, a little preemptive killing would have been a very good thing for the state to do). It's a black and white position. The only way you could say I was engaging in nuances is if I said SOME of the time it is correct/improper action.

Is summation, that is VERY black and white, and you failed to go anywhere near the "self-defense" you originally through in as a defeat of black and white.

I think you are trying to defend a very bad example like when Throb squawks over and over and over $1,00*1.30%, squawk!

 

[zipman]

I've posted the links to it.

Now, show me the "Gray" area you've found in my philosophy, or can you now not even answer your own challenge?

__________________

I already did it twice in this thread Cap'n Ad Hominem.

You use nuance all the time to backpedal and massage your posts when confronted with logical flaws.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

No what A_J calls nuance is really just context. The world isn't black and white (as A_J himself proudly proclaimed). That's the land of extremism, you know, the thing you complain about when others do it.

This has nothing to do with DNA. It has to do with claiming one thing and then using the opposite in your arguments, which is exactly what A_J was doing. Saying everything is black and white is a stupid comment that is unsupportable.

Of course if you want to try and defend his comment, feel free. It's easy to pick apart using logic and examples.

Actually, I just showed you that, no, it's not, you just imagined it would be easy, like imagining there's no heaven, it's easy if you try...

It does seem that you were less than eager to go back and revive your "argument."

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I already did it twice in this thread Cap'n Ad Hominem.

You use nuance all the time to backpedal and massage your posts when confronted with logical flaws.

Again, show me. I just went back and "discussed" your point, which seems to be WAAAAAY too nuanced for any of us to understand.

Maybe you can break it down for us professor.

 

[Saint Peter]

There is no Heaven?

 

[Recidiva]

There is no Heaven?

Not unless we make it here on earth. Sorry.

 

[Wok]

There is no Heaven?

Sorry to break it to you Petey. Now eat your pudding.

 

[zipman]

[1] I know what I said and I meant what I said. I asked you about killing and murder because they have two different definitions and I wanted you to be more precise in what you were saying so that I would not have to suffer through your nuancing of the stone.

[2] No, none at all. What happened to your NUANCE? The State's duty is to PROTECT its citizens, not to kill them either directly or by its inactions (as in the lead-up to 9-11, a little preemptive killing would have been a very good thing for the state to do). It's a black and white position. The only way you could say I was engaging in nuances is if I said SOME of the time it is correct/improper action.

Is summation, that is VERY black and white, and you failed to go anywhere near the "self-defense" you originally through in as a defeat of black and white.

I think you are trying to defend a very bad example like when Throb squawks over and over and over $1,00*1.30%, squawk!

1) I used the word killing specifically. You tried to nuance your way out of it by asking if I meant murder, which is conditional on intent (which is the context of the killing or...nuance).

2) The bolded sections above contradict each other. Either the state "should not kill them directly" or they should be allowed to engage in "a little preemptive killing." Making that statement shows that the world isn't black and white.

How the hell can you manage to completely contradict yourself within one paragraph that actually disproves the point you are trying to make? That's both sad and hysterical at the same time.

 

[tactful]

Forgotten, Question Mark?

Hell, nobody even asks about the Mysterians,

their in tears,

96, I'll bet.

 

[zipman]

Actually, I just showed you that, no, it's not, you just imagined it would be easy, like imagining there's no heaven, it's easy if you try...

It does seem that you were less than eager to go back and revive your "argument."

The initial arbument you made was "everything is black and white" and then two posts later said "I'm talking about the state and the limitations on it."

Do you have a problem with the understanding what "everything" means? I could post a definition if you need me to.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The initial arbument you made was "everything is black and white" and then two posts later said "I'm talking about the state and the limitations on it."

Do you have a problem with the understanding what "everything" means? I could post a definition if you need me to.

I addressed AJ's tendency to convert things to absolutes to further his agenda earlier...

Phase 2 of the Typical AJ Diatribe™ begins, in which numerical falsehoods are introduced and indetermine and/or uncertain descriptors ("some", "certain", "a few" ,"select") are gradually replaced with absolute commodities ("all", "everyone", etc) or removed, thus changing the fundamental meanings of statements.

For example, "Some Democrats wish to increase certain gun control regulations" becomes "All Democrats wish to increase certain gun control regulations", which in turn evolves into "All Democrats wish to increase all gun control regulations", which is eventually shortened to "Every Democrats want to increase gun control".

At each step in the evolutionary process, outrage is increased exponentially, with the end result being Typical AJ Spittle Flecked Oratory™.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

There is no Heaven?

Not in my book...





Oh the upside, hell ain't in it either, but then, I've never been to Detroit.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The initial arbument you made was "everything is black and white" and then two posts later said "I'm talking about the state and the limitations on it."

Do you have a problem with the understanding what "everything" means? I could post a definition if you need me to.

You are clearly operating based on a flawed premise. The world is not black and white no matter how much you may try and "nuance" yourself into believing that it is.

Critical thinking involves the ability to recognize and analyze context, not just assign ideas as absolutes.

Take killing for example. According to you, killing is either wrong and unacceptable under any circumstance or right and acceptable under any circumstance. (1) I think we can all agree that killing isn't always right and acceptable, especially to anyone who professes to be a libertarian. (2) However, if you look at killing based on self-defense, it is part of the world of gray that you deny exists. It is based on the context of the situation. (3)

(1) This is why I tried to clarify "killing or murder." In every POLITICAL thread, it is clear that when I say black and white, I'm not talking about swatting insects, butchering, putting down rabid skunks or anything else other than the basics of the State and its governance.

The state exists to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the inalienable rights of the individual, therefore, "self-defense" is never a gray area, I have an ABSOLUTE, Black and White, RIGHT to self-defense.

It is only based on context when you start saying, for example, okay, some abortion due to regret is as acceptable as abortion in the name of self-defense, for this logic leads to the government establishing end-of-life parameters for keeping people alive, a slippery slope indeed.

Again, if you want to take the black and white argument head-on, the you must do it in a logically consistent way especially if you want to do it in the context of "How a Libertarian sees it (which becomes problematic for many Libertarians are pro-abortion based on emotion based fallacies just as their liberal cohorts are).

(2) And as I just demonstrated, this is an ad hominem by circumstance (class=Libertarian) in that ∀Libertarians hold the same positions. They do not. Some are Libertarians merely because they want to smoke dope, others are drawn to it because it's not Republican or Democrat since those parties serve the individual so poorly when he fails to put his hand out for a handout.

(3) That's what the nuanced thinker would say, it is the road to black, as I posted before. It is "contextual" thinking that leads to Eugenics, when we look not at life, but "quality" of life and "cost-value" of life. If I were to fall into that logic trap, then I would be in your trap, but alas, as we can clearly see, I am not "entrapped" by your brilliance.

And once again, your cavorting with Throb proves your mettle and "manhood."

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

1) I used the word killing specifically. You tried to nuance your way out of it by asking if I meant murder, which is conditional on intent (which is the context of the killing or...nuance).

2) The bolded sections above contradict each other. Either the state "should not kill them directly" or they should be allowed to engage in "a little preemptive killing." Making that statement shows that the world isn't black and white.

How the hell can you manage to completely contradict yourself within one paragraph that actually disproves the point you are trying to make? That's both sad and hysterical at the same time.

No, it's a nod to the black and white necessity of self defense, for the inalienable rights of every nation are pretty much the same as for the individual. If someone means you terminal harm, you have the absolute, black and white, right to self-defense whether it is as an individual or a national course of action.

If my neighbor has threatened my life and then show up with a gun and aims it at me (think bin Laden) then I do not have any need to wait for him to pull the trigger before I shoot him dead. That's consistent with my "black and white" Libertarianism. Making sure I get it all in context leaves me as dead as if I were living under the tyrant's boot, be he my neighbor or the loving tolerant religion of peace.

 

[zipman]

(1) This is why I tried to clarify "killing or murder." In every POLITICAL thread, it is clear that when I say black and white, I'm not talking about swatting insects, butchering, putting down rabid skunks or anything else other than the basics of the State and its governance.

The state exists to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the inalienable rights of the individual, therefore, "self-defense" is never a gray area, I have an ABSOLUTE, Black and White, RIGHT to self-defense.

It is only based on context when you start saying, for example, okay, some abortion due to regret is as acceptable as abortion in the name of self-defense, for this logic leads to the government establishing end-of-life parameters for keeping people alive, a slippery slope indeed.

Again, if you want to take the black and white argument head-on, the you must do it in a logically consistent way especially if you want to do it in the context of "How a Libertarian sees it (which becomes problematic for many Libertarians are pro-abortion based on emotion based fallacies just as their liberal cohorts are).

(2) And as I just demonstrated, this is an ad hominem by circumstance (class=Libertarian) in that ∀Libertarians hold the same positions. They do not. Some are Libertarians merely because they want to smoke dope, others are drawn to it because it's not Republican or Democrat since those parties serve the individual so poorly when he fails to put his hand out for a handout.

(3) That's what the nuanced thinker would say, it is the road to black, as I posted before. It is "contextual" thinking that leads to Eugenics, when we look not at life, but "quality" of life and "cost-value" of life. If I were to fall into that logic trap, then I would be in your trap, but alas, as we can clearly see, I am not "entrapped" by your brilliance.

And once again, your cavorting with Throb proves your mettle and "manhood."

1) Your next post just shows that even if you limit "everything" to just be "everything in political threads" (which goes against the meaning of everything) you still are qualifying your position based on context or nuance.

2) That isn't ad hominem as I wasn't trying to destroy or negate your argument based on the fact that you claim to be a libertarian. I was questioning how your flawed logic was consistent with being a libertarian. The fact that I had already addressed the logical flaws of your argument proves it isn't ad hominem. You really need to learn what that term means.

3) You see logic "traps" and "gambits" like those people on the show Ghost Hunters. They are figments of your imagination. Either your logic stands up to scrutiny or it doesn't. Yours doesn't.

 

[zipman]

No, it's a nod to the black and white necessity of self defense, for the inalienable rights of every nation are pretty much the same as for the individual. If someone means you terminal harm, you have the absolute, black and white, right to self-defense whether it is as an individual or a national course of action.

If my neighbor has threatened my life and then show up with a gun and aims it at me (think bin Laden) then I do not have any need to wait for him to pull the trigger before I shoot him dead. That's consistent with my "black and white" Libertarianism. Making sure I get it all in context leaves me as dead as if I were living under the tyrant's boot, be he my neighbor or the loving tolerant religion of peace.

No, you have the right to arrest or detain those individuals. Not to kill anyone who you think is a potential threat to you. That goes against the rule of law that this nation is based on. And again, it shows that when you say everything, you don't really mean it. In a black and white world (even just from a political perspective) it is either right or wrong. What you really want is to be the tyrant and decide who deserves death based on a perceived threat and who doesn't.

Once again, your pretzel logic falls apart when scrutinized. To you, "everything" really means most of the time unless I need it to be the opposite to prove a point. That's not everything. It's the very "nuance" you rail against on here all the time.

 

[koalabear]

No, you have the right to arrest or detain those individuals. Not to kill anyone who you think is a potential threat to you. That goes against the rule of law that this nation is based on. And again, it shows that when you say everything, you don't really mean it. In a black and white world (even just from a political perspective) it is either right or wrong. What you really want is to be the tyrant and decide who deserves death based on a perceived threat and who doesn't.

Once again, your pretzel logic falls apart when scrutinized. To you, "everything" really means most of the time unless I need it to be the opposite to prove a point. That's not everything. It's the very "nuance" you rail against on here all the time.

If your State has the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground Laws, shoot away.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You are clearly operating based on a flawed premise. The world is not black and white no matter how much you may try and "nuance" yourself into believing that it is.

Critical thinking involves the ability to recognize and analyze context, not just assign ideas as absolutes.

Take killing for example. According to you, killing is either wrong and unacceptable under any circumstance or right and acceptable under any circumstance. I think we can all agree that killing isn't always right and acceptable, especially to anyone who professes to be a libertarian. However, if you look at killing based on self-defense, it is part of the world of gray that you deny exists. It is based on the context of the situation.

I have never, ever said or taken that position. You ascribed it to me and then demanded that I defend it.

I have patiently laid out, over and over, my EXACT* position.

Please show us the gray in my ACTUAL position...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

No, you have the right to arrest or detain those individuals. Not to kill anyone who you think is a potential threat to you. That goes against the rule of law that this nation is based on. And again, it shows that when you say everything, you don't really mean it. In a black and white world (even just from a political perspective) it is either right or wrong. What you really want is to be the tyrant and decide who deserves death based on a perceived threat and who doesn't.

Once again, your pretzel logic falls apart when scrutinized. To you, "everything" really means most of the time unless I need it to be the opposite to prove a point. That's not everything. It's the very "nuance" you rail against on here all the time.

No, it does not, and I already explained that. You just ignored the explanation and keep resorting to the same tactic of just asserting that you are right because you ignore what you find inconvenient.

We have no more, or less, right to "arrest" them than we do to "kill" them.

Again, to go back to the analogy, if your neighbor is threatening to kill you as he his point a gun at you, the law does not demand that you can only perform a citizen's arrest because you have the absolute right to defend your life. So does a nation.