This and That
The Marquis said:
Well, as appealing as it is, no, that's not right.
You asserted a questionable notion, used a limited example to support your assertion, and then disqualified from consideration anything that doesn't meet your expectations.
Oh my. I'll try... once you let me know to what level you'd like me to dumb it down for you.
Any level that actually tries to explain the point instead of resting on the implicit demand that I should be a psychic medium in order to read your mind.
I'm sure I would care if that point was important.
My opinion of my neighbours has been rather low for quite some time now, alleviated not in the slightest by what I'm witnessing here.
That you think your opinion of them has any more final validity than mine is one of the reasons I find you so amusing.
You keep raising what appear to be straw men. It's not that my opinion in general has any more final validity than yours. Rather, I would simply appreciate it if you would base your opinion on facts, not spurious assertions thereof.
That, Tiassa, is your greatest problem. Your brain doesn't function too well when faced with something it can't understand. Rather than confront that, you dismiss it in a cloud of verbosity.
Oh, I admit you caught me off guard, entirely. You also wrote one or two of the funniest lines I've seen around Sciforums for a while.
But you are mistaken insofar as I do understand what I'm seeing, and if you really think you can convince people that your opinion is valid specifically for its hostility to supporting facts, you're perfectly welcome to continue trying.
I have to admit, though; You are perhaps the greatest filibuster I have had the dubious pleasure of encountering firsthand.
The only cause I have to doubt the word can be accurately applied to you is that I'm not entirely sure that it's a deliberate tactic.
Why, thank you. I would return the compliment, except I have, indeed, encountered plenty of people who are just as stubborn and averse to reality as you are, so in that sense I must confess you only stand out for the acute stupidity of your argument.
Ah, yes. The inability to confront anything deeper than simple politics.
This from a guy who wants to rehash an aged, well-known complaint about communists in order to avoid looking at what has happened since?
"Reality and Facts", Tiassa, as I've already noted, differ widely according to the sympathies of the observer.
I think the proposition that you are to be taken seriously would make that point clear.
I know exactly as much about it as most men do. When I'm in a particularly egotistical mood, I like to think I know a little more.
I think the first sentence in that is particularly egotistic.
Again, what you really mean to say is that you won't be satisfied until I present a case based around the facts as you see them, not as I do.
Rather a tall order, don't you think? Intrinsically unfair, old bean.
It would be unfair if that was the case.
So while we're on the topic of strawmen, laddie, was that first sentence above a strawman, or was it not? Perhaps it all depends on the perception of "fact"?
It's a straw man because it demands what is already on the record, thus misrepresenting another by suggesting it is not.
You must take some time someday to understand absurdity, Tiassa.
Well, in this case, Sisyphus is
clearly quite happy.
I'm wondering myself.
How you continue to quote yourself in order to demonstrate what you claim was a strawman aimed not at yourself is quite beyond me.
You included a lot of people in your straw man;
all communists, I might remind. Perhaps we could have settled that issue had you been forthright, sir:
"
Perhaps I'm being a ilttle harsh with the "all" (although it does appear quite true in the case of the op'er) but I've yet to meet an individual who manages to address it effectively.
Perhaps you'd care to try?"
(#127; boldface accent added)
All I did was point out that I had already considered those issues on the record. Apparently, you couldn't be bothered to tell me what of that you disputed. Rather, you just decided to complain.
Your duty, if you wish to point out a strawman, is to present a case as to why it was such using the words and viewpoint of those you are attempting to defend.
I already have. Please see
#160 and
#278 above. From that latter:
The problem I have is that as various sympathetic voices discuss communism's track record, nobody wants to move beyond it. Take a look at The Marquis:
• Communists suffer a general lack of perspective regarding human nature.
• No communist can have anything intelligent to say.
• Considerations of communism that do not conform to the first rule are not communist.
∴ No communist can have anything intelligent to say.
I consider it a straw man argument to ignore what someone has written, and then demand they reiterate it. Since you obviously can't be bothered to attend the record, I haven't any great faith that you will understand.
It went something like this:
Me: These guys think...
You : No, that's a strawman because I think...
Me: Wasn't really talking to you. I retract the "all".
You : I said, it 's a strawman because I think...
Me : Yes, I heard you. What you've said isn't what they said...
You : Yes it is!.
Just think, for a moment, Marquis, how much further along we could be in a constructive discussion if you would simply
respond to my arguments instead of trying to write them for me.
You asked. And then
you complained when that question was answered, apparently because you didn't like the answer.
"... but I've yet to meet an individual who manages to address it effectively.
Perhaps you'd care to try?
You
asked Marquis. You
asked for what was already on the record, and then complained when it was pointed out to you.
• • •
Cosmictraveler said:
Another problem with Communism is that once they take control there's no way, besides an armed rebellion, to remove them from their positions. there are no elections if the citizens don't like what is happening and those who disagree are thrown into jail for being "against the state"!
My question to you, sir, is why anyone should take seriously a political opinion that has no connection to reality?
Communism is no more incompatible with the ballot box than capitalism.