--

CoT debates -- Meta-meta

After considerable indulgence in that habit, accompanied by half a decade of regular online debates on both technical and non-technical fora, combined with 30 odd years of non-stop interaction with humanity, it is with great confidence that I put forth the observation that any kind of intellectual discussion between two individuals is governed by the axiom that both individuals are completely correct in what they affirm and totally incorrect in what the refute.

-discuss
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
September 13th, 2006 7:31am
You're a tit.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
September 13th, 2006 7:33am
if I were you, in your future posts I would aim for brevity and clarity instead of long-winded pompousness.

once you have those two tricks nailed, then Id try to post something intelligent instead of a wildly incorrect, knee-jerk response to a couple of web forum debates.

moron.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
September 13th, 2006 7:34am
"You're a tit"



damn!  I wish Id followed my own advice.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
September 13th, 2006 7:34am
muppet, come suck.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
September 13th, 2006 7:38am
awww, hell.  dont pretend you didn't find muppets post hugely funny.  it was a perfect set piece response.  classic web forum comedy.

really, in my next life Im going to come back as a woman and breed with muppet.  our kids will be awesome.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
September 13th, 2006 7:40am
Oh! I do get his sense of humour. It is insanely contrived. As to baby-making, you've got to die first.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
September 13th, 2006 7:44am
Do elaborate on my insanely contrived sense of humor.  As a counterpiece, you could also offer a thesis on the relative originality of everybody else on the internet.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
September 13th, 2006 7:46am
"It is insanely contrived"

thats an interesting statement coming from someone whose OP contained the phrase 'non-technical fora'

perhaps you could like to reconsider the idea of using 'insanely contrived' as the basis for criticising someone else?
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
September 13th, 2006 7:46am
muppet, you fail to grasp the notion that while one can demonstrate murder by actually killing, it is stupid to demand demonstration of not killing. I am told that the modern take on this concept is that the absence of the negative is not proof of the positive.

wSV, interesting that you find it interesting. The tenor of your statement leads me to conclude that a challenge is posed to me. I fail to see the need for such a wager. I see no reason why insanity or contrivance need be non-standard (I take it, those were the terms that led you to demand that which you have). It is an honourable state for a anyone on CoT, and in the case of muppet, an actual improvement.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
September 13th, 2006 7:54am
Oh man.  I love guys who think that puffing up their vocabulary on the internet:

1) wins arguments
2) impresses anyone over 15 years old.

What shall we do with it, wSV?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
September 13th, 2006 7:56am
again.  I would love to debate you.  unfortunately I dont have a clue what you are talking about.  have you considered rearranging your sentences to ensure that they have a modicum of semantic content?
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
September 13th, 2006 7:57am
damn muppet.  quit posting so fast.  you are ruining my delivery.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
September 13th, 2006 7:58am
muppet, neither of the two points you noted apply to me. Re-read my OP. It make require you to make an effort. Please do so. And should you actually grasp what I said, do reply. I am interested in validating my observation.

wSV, you too need to practise reading something other bumper stickers that do not know the functional differences between a hyphen, an en-dash and an em-dash.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
September 13th, 2006 8:02am
Well, odd characters dude, it occurs to me that the party of the first part has declined not to offer some remonstrance to the party of the second part (being that the party of the second part is understood to be your own person) and in cases like this it becomes incumbent upon the part of the second part to offer incontrovertible attestation to the party of the first part that no cause for recriminations has, in fact, occured in any context that might provoke justifiable acclimatization in the form of fisticuffs, pugilism, or alternative methods of bodily violence.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
September 13th, 2006 8:02am
However, dear sir, insofar as this instance of deliberation is concerned, it would behoove your kind self to note that it is not a altercation and any such analysis is non conformant with the true nature of the said exchange. Furthermore it is my fear that any consequent dispute would suffer a degeneration to a fully fledged confrontation and thereby make true you incorrect assertions.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
September 13th, 2006 8:09am
You neglect to note that I often butter my toast on both sides, thereby creating quite  a disturbance when the aforementioned oxidized slice is dropped, causing it to spin perpetually in the air in an unresolvable quantum predicament  whilst it "decides" (from a metaphysical point of view and obviously not a sentient one) upon which side to land.

This makes me eminently qualified to not only comment on your paltry offerings to this "web" "enabled" "forum" but also to offer violent rearrangement of your component parts for the natural safety of all involved.  The most frightening aspect of this prospect is that you may already have bred, in which case the dark deeds that will necessarily follow your own extermination are sadly very clear and equally sadly required.  Heaven forfend that there ever be any more of you.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
September 13th, 2006 8:12am
Q.E.D.

I didn't expect it to be proved so easily. To recap. In any debate, both parties are correct in what they affirm and wrong on what they deny.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
September 13th, 2006 8:20am
You're a swollen tit.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
September 13th, 2006 8:22am
brilliant!  I concur that you have proved beyond any reasonable doubt
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
September 13th, 2006 8:23am
The sentiment is true. Not the statement. Unless you equate Is-A to Has-A.

Oh! Cripes! You are a PHP programmer, aren't you? My bad.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
September 13th, 2006 8:24am
Extrapolation from a single data point is such a killer methodology.  Why haven't our top scientists figured this one out?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
September 13th, 2006 8:24am
...they're probably too busy trying not to refute stuff accidentally...
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
September 13th, 2006 8:26am
>> Extrapolation from a single data point is such a killer methodology.  Why haven't our top scientists figured this one out?

Re-read OP.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
September 13th, 2006 8:29am
Oh I'm sorry.  Anecdotal evidence followed by a brilliant proof using a single data point is a killer methodology.
Permalink Send private email wicket awethome 
September 13th, 2006 8:30am
While it is true that the plural of anecdotes is not data, it also true that data is inclusive of anecdotes.

As is the norm, you have reaffirmed my other submission. Typical American incompleteness.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
September 13th, 2006 8:34am
<<I didn't expect it to be proved so easily. To recap. In any debate, both parties are correct in what they affirm and wrong on what they deny.>>

I affirm that you're wrong.  I deny that I'm wrong.
Permalink Kenny 
September 13th, 2006 9:37am
"completely correct in what they affirm and totally incorrect in what the refute."

In general, the use of absolutes in this way (the "totally" and "comletely" up there) indicates a distorted view of the world.  Very few people are "totally" or "completely" correct in anything they say -- most things have some 'shade of gray' to them.  If not that, at least two people have two different ways of looking at things, which means they'll see the same thing slightly differenly.

This does not make either of them incorrect, it just means they both have a different, but mostly correct, point of view.  The error rises in either of them insisting that THEIR point of view is the ONLY point of view.

This is a very human error, that happens a lot.  I'm hoping with maturity, training, and practice, that people can stop making this particular error.  But first they have to know it exists.  THEN they have to realize it's a problem.  THEN they can begin to learn how to deal with it.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
September 13th, 2006 9:53am
Allan,

Your brains are made of cheese.
Permalink Send private email wicket awethome 
September 13th, 2006 9:54am
To summarize -- no.  By your use of "any", "completely", and "totally" you have made an axiom which cannot be true.  A single instance in which a single person admitted the other person was right, in any small way, would invalidate your axiom.

And that happens all the time.  For instance, I can see how you might come to believe that.  I can validate that often, advocates for a cause present their case in the best light, and try to put their 'opponents' case in the worst light.

Since I have agreed somewhat with your thesis, this invalidates the "totally wrong" part.  QED.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
September 13th, 2006 10:01am
"totally incorrect in what the refute".

On the one hand, it's almost a tautology.  If I affirm part of your position, that's correct, but the parts of your position I refute, I then must be wrong about.

Here's a refutation that is correct -- you mis-spelled 'they'.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
September 13th, 2006 10:07am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: September, 2006 Other topics: September, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics