Hoo Am I To Juj?

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Hoo Am I To Juj?

Postby supervitor » Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:09 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
supervitor wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:We agree: when you don't spell it out....its not there. When its not there, you can't make a stand on it. You have to reverse, back up, fill in, then go again.

You are {!#%@} up the middle parts.

No, I didn't say that. I say that even when you don't spell it out, it's there. Hence my previous reference to interpretation and the school where we (I assume) were taught that.

I'll say again: "bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
super: that may well be what you think....especially after being challenged on it but you made no expressed distinction between justified and unjustified calling out for hypocrisy. //// And I'll expand a bit. What you say could well be exactly what you thought you were leaving yourself room for. But a LIAR could say as much. How to avoid this verisimilitude?

LEARN to include the weasle words that do support the faintly indicated PRIVATE thoughts. Fer Instance: "The foregoing however does not prevent me from declaring: All the Pukes are hypocrites." Many other ways to say it as well.

Foolish and cuts against your own credibility WITH OTHERS, if not your own personal growth, to argue points as unsupported as this one. Rinse, Lather, Repeat---and just do better next time.


I think you are sounding too concerned about how I phrase my ideas: I'll do as I please, bobbo. I don't think "a LIAR could say as much" is enough reason for me to change how I express myself (I don't actually care how OTHERS consider me).

In fact, as I wrote, no way I could think someone might interpret it wrongly or as in "I was calling people hypocrites for calling other people hypocrites": that thought never even crossed my mind, because it makes no sense. When they did (interpret it wrongly), I asked for support of the claim. None has been given. To me, what makes sense, is that the person interpreting it is the one that has the responsability to try to understand what's there or ask for clarification instead of promptly assuming something that does not makes sense. Maybe there's an impulse to do this carelessly, just to take a swing at me, I don't know. But whoever does it, takes the chance of being shown wrong. As it happened.

I think my point is well supported or you'd came at me with an actual argument instead of just saying it's not, or that "a liar could do the same"

Reason, bobbo. That's what you need to apply.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Hoo Am I To Juj?

Postby supervitor » Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:13 pm

JO 753 wrote:Are you guyz all clonez uv my sister, arguing with each other?

First you sed that it wuz yesterday wen that happened but then I sed it wuz 3 dayz ago...

BUT it wuz you who sed that earlier so I believed you befor you sed it wuznt then all uv a sudden...

I wuz rite all along kuz you never lissin so alwayz get everything mixed up and THEN you say...

YOU DID! It wuznt until last week that you suddenly chanje your story without admitting....

O YE? Well remember wen you were 5 and you sed mom wuz going to spank us for...

No no no... it wuznt that coupon you threw away it wuz the pensil that she stuck in the socket...

YOU sed it first then she sed THEN I asked if it wuz, but then you sed the oppozit and then she sed...


It coud go on forever.


That's what we are here for!!

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Hoo Am I To Juj?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:16 pm

Words have meaning super. Facts are facts. Poodle and I are two people who see your communication as subject to the conclusion of being ironically hypocritical. When ambiguity exists, you should recognize "for yourself" that you leave yourself open to such interpretations.

You don't care......thats called being full of yourself. You know what the self is..... right?

I gave you a full argument/analysis as well as an example of how to correct it. More "self" on your part to say otherwise.

Silly Hooman.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Hoo Am I To Juj?

Postby supervitor » Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:45 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Words have meaning super. Facts are facts. Poodle and I are two people who see your communication as subject to the conclusion of being ironically hypocritical. When ambiguity exists, you should recognize "for yourself" that you leave yourself open to such interpretations.

I don't deny words have meaning. I say there's other components for meaning like context and it (the meaning) actually making sense. People make wrong interpretations all the time.
You don't care......thats called being full of yourself. You know what the self is..... right?

I do have a large ego. But I don't think that's related. It's just how I carry myself.
I gave you a full argument/analysis as well as an example of how to correct it. More "self" on your part to say otherwise.
Silly Hooman.

You gave no such thing. And I read your example.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3272
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Hoo Am I To Juj?

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:53 am

Bob: Okay. I want you to listen very carefully and tell me if I've got this right. You're angry about what you think I said about what you said about what you thought I said (but we now both agree I didn't say) about what you thought I thought you thought about what I did when you did what you did when I didn't do what you thought I said I would do but what I thought I said I would try to do, is that right?
Alice: Yes.
Bob: Yeah I thought so. Well I didn't say that.
Alice: Yes you did! You said you couldn't believe I said what I said about what I thought you said (but which we do agree you didn't say) because you thought I said I said what I said not because you didn't do what you said you'd do but because you said you'd do it, and that makes me feel that you feel that I feel that you don't feel what I feel.
Bob: You know I feel you feel I feel what you feel.
Alice: Yes but I don't feel you know I know that and that's why I said what I said.
Bob: What did you say?
Alice: That sometimes, I think you're a little over-analytical—
Bob: Bollocks.

- from John Finnemore's souvenir program
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest