It doesn’t even matter if it’s the furthest thing, still, 100% serious - can you not see it?
Try
I’ll bet you didn’t even try
People see things all the time that don’t exist, its ok
Yes I pushed it there, you’ve pretended to handle me before, my bad
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I’ve got more layers of slipperyness than you could even really begin to pretend to handle
[/quote]
Edit: So I keep hearing. One would think our previous encounters would have gone differently, in light of this oft-asserted truism.[/quote]
I don’t recall asserting it other than here, jog my memory?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I don’t believe you.
I don’t believe you don’t know about political prisoners in China.
I don’t believe you don’t know about '89.
I don’t believe you don’t know about their deporting North Koreans to die in gulags.
And understanding an oppressive regime is not analogous to weighing Santa Fe as a place to move. Obviously.
Again: You’ve never been to Nazi Germany. Are you waiting until you visit to pass judgement, or are you not?[/quote]
I believe you know about the political prisoners who have opposed America’s War on Drugs. I also believe you know what happens when a large group of people decides to withdraw its property from the U.S.
I believe you know about Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.
I don’t believe you support open borders.
Nope, I’m not waiting to pass judgment on Nazi Germany. I really haven’t waited to pass judgment on China, either, truthfully. I would just rather not compare either State to mine based on what mine tells me.[/quote]
Yeah, again, none of this is analogous in either magnitude or kind, and you know it well.
And I already estimate the response - laughing at the concept of “try”, and try to make it seem like weak whining on my part or something
I was just joking with my buddy severiano about our tendencies towards stubbornness - myself included, first and foremost. Just want to highlight that it’s impossible for me to be backing down
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Just want to highlight that it’s impossible for me to be backing down[/quote]
That must be a rather dysfunctional trait.[/quote]
Don’t know about dysfunctional…
…but it does seem a bit petty.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Just want to highlight that it’s impossible for me to be backing down[/quote]
That must be a rather dysfunctional trait.[/quote]
sigh
In context
Impossible for me to be backing down on the concept of the importance of “trying” to see the other guys shit even if we think we are certain it’s bullshit. That was the purpose of my post to severiano - which started this mini discussion. So for me to ‘revert’ to such weak ‘piffle’ is neither reversion not weakness at all. Which if my estimation is correct that is his most likely attack pattern.
Seems to me that his style is to take that post to severiano, battle the red herring which I don’t really care about, and laugh at the real
To not make the utmost effort to see the non-existent, is to pick and choose what even makes sense without having properly attempted to make sense of it. Again I came in here merely to drop a reminder about these tendencies we all have. Context man, context - I tend to back down quickly when I see I’m wrong - and I tend to look for it
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Just want to highlight that it’s impossible for me to be backing down[/quote]
That must be a rather dysfunctional trait.[/quote]
sigh
In context
Impossible for me to be backing down on the concept of the importance of “trying” to see the other guys shit even if we think we are certain it’s bullshit. That was the purpose of my post to severiano - which started this mini discussion. So for me to ‘revert’ to such weak ‘piffle’ is neither reversion not weakness at all. Which if my estimation is correct that is his most likely attack pattern.
Seems to me that his style is to take that post to severiano, battle the red herring which I don’t really care about, and laugh at the real
To not make the utmost effort to see the non-existent, is to pick and choose what even makes sense without having properly attempted to make sense of it. Again I came in here merely to drop a reminder about these tendencies we all have. Context man, context - I tend to back down quickly when I see I’m wrong - and I tend to look for it[/quote]
Sorry to have made you sigh.
[/quote]
Lol, it’s cool. I don’t remember if I actually physically sighed or not - might have just been a communications tactic
Most likely I wasn’t going to be understood until that better explanation anyways - so thanks, actually
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Heh, I’m stubborn - I see a red herring
Which was yours? [/quote]
I see that your logical befuddlement endures. Constancy is indeed comforting.[/quote]
No you don’t, I’ve got more layers of slipperyness than you could even really begin to pretend to handle
I see many things, from many angles - that’s no flaw
I’ve got flaws, but enjoy misleading others to latch onto false flaws of mine that don’t really exist, makes me feel smart when they bite like fish on my shiny obvious little pieces of bait. But I’m trying to stop because that’s just sick of me to enjoy such a thing, even tho they almost always have what they got coming
The ability of mine to see a red herring does not imply the inability to see anything else. Much less actual belief. You shouldn’t hold a grudge with me, it has potential to give you incentive to miss much learning. You seem to maybe be a natural at this whole slipperyness thing - I type that as a compliment, but you can read it how you want
[/quote]
I can’t judge China or the Chinese government, I’ve never been there.
Implicit axiom: I can’t judge a place or group I haven’t been to or met, respectively.
Axiom applied elsewhere: I can’t judge the Nazis/Stalin/Molochites/Dahmer/Fred West.
This is the furthest thing from a red herring. It is, in fact, a reductio. A red herring would have been my responding: “But in China, the women don’t shave their armpits.”[/i]
Yes, I’ve heard the “I’m slippery/learn from me” thing before. I submit in refutation that my grasp of all herrings red, evidenced above, is something you might look to for edification’s sake yourself.
Friends–of course. Don’t take my previous post, or this one, or my general correctness in arguments with you, as instances of hostility. My original comment about your enduring befuddlement was intended as a joking, if jokingly sincere, ribbing.[/quote]
I was thinking more of argument from weak analogy. I’m more trying to point out that if you buy into the idea that you need to have experienced something to know its bad/ have some sort of a posteriori knowledge about things we would probably know about half of what we know today.
Think about it, you would have to try things in order to know you don’t like them. Initially this doesn’t seem to bad, but then how does one find out they aren’t homosexuals, or that you don’t like to cut yourself? I guess by that logic you just have to try it out to be sure. I don’t buy it.
I’m not saying a posteriori isn’t valuable, I’m saying this sort of logic is putting too many eggs in a posteriori knowledge. We can know certain things without actually having experienced them.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
And I already estimate the response - laughing at the concept of “try”, and try to make it seem like weak whining on my part or something
[/quote]
Yes. And then I was going to eat three puppies and punch a few disabled children.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Just want to highlight that it’s impossible for me to be backing down[/quote]
That must be a rather dysfunctional trait.[/quote]
sigh
In context
Impossible for me to be backing down on the concept of the importance of “trying” to see the other guys shit even if we think we are certain it’s bullshit. That was the purpose of my post to severiano - which started this mini discussion. So for me to ‘revert’ to such weak ‘piffle’ is neither reversion not weakness at all. Which if my estimation is correct that is his most likely attack pattern.
Seems to me that his style is to take that post to severiano, battle the red herring which I don’t really care about, and laugh at the real
To not make the utmost effort to see the non-existent, is to pick and choose what even makes sense without having properly attempted to make sense of it. Again I came in here merely to drop a reminder about these tendencies we all have. Context man, context - I tend to back down quickly when I see I’m wrong - and I tend to look for it[/quote]
You type all this, and yet you say so very little. You claimed to have seen a red herring where a perfectly legitimate reductio was instead. There is nothing else afoot.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
And I already estimate the response - laughing at the concept of “try”, and try to make it seem like weak whining on my part or something
[/quote]
Yes. And then I was going to eat three puppies and punch a few disabled children.[/quote]
Punching disabled children is cowardly. Real men play the knock out game. Or as we call it ‘happy slapping.’ I’m sure you’re familiar with it. Sucker punch a stranger when they least expect it, watch them drop to the ground unconscious, and hopefully die when their head shatters on the pavement, or as we call it ‘gutter.’ Oh happy days! Then there’s glassing. That’s immensely amusing for all involved. Except perhaps for the guy picking glass out of his face and eyes.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Just want to highlight that it’s impossible for me to be backing down[/quote]
That must be a rather dysfunctional trait.[/quote]
sigh
In context
Impossible for me to be backing down on the concept of the importance of “trying” to see the other guys shit even if we think we are certain it’s bullshit. That was the purpose of my post to severiano - which started this mini discussion. So for me to ‘revert’ to such weak ‘piffle’ is neither reversion not weakness at all. Which if my estimation is correct that is his most likely attack pattern.
Seems to me that his style is to take that post to severiano, battle the red herring which I don’t really care about, and laugh at the real
To not make the utmost effort to see the non-existent, is to pick and choose what even makes sense without having properly attempted to make sense of it. Again I came in here merely to drop a reminder about these tendencies we all have. Context man, context - I tend to back down quickly when I see I’m wrong - and I tend to look for it[/quote]
You type all this, and yet you say so very little. You claimed to have seen a red herring where a perfectly legitimate reductio was instead. There is nothing else afoot.[/quote]
Whatever little I said there is just about as little as I came here to say
Not just the thread, I’m talking about my purpose in these forums
You’re not my friend - heh
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Whatever little I said there is just about as little as I came here to say
Not just the thread, I’m talking about my purpose in these forums
You’re not my friend - heh[/quote]
Cryptically goofy, self-important, and empty–check, check, and check.
^
Were you or were you not insinuating that my post about Hitler and Dahmer represented a red herring?
That’s yes or no, please.
I’m sure you were–though, the slovenliness of your thoughts and grammar, coupled with the goofy crypticism you’re fond of peddling, often make it difficult for even the simplest of your sentences to convey what they’re supposed to. But, as I said, I’m sure that you were. Yes?
If yes, I’ll bury the matter in a single post and be done with it.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Whatever little I said there is just about as little as I came here to say
Not just the thread, I’m talking about my purpose in these forums
You’re not my friend - heh[/quote]
Cryptically goofy, self-important, and empty–check, check, and check.
[/quote]
Thank you very much for doing exactly what I thought and (admittedly) hoped you would
I’m working on something else for my buddy Severiano, which you probably will not enjoy. Hope you enjoy
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^
Were you or were you not insinuating that my post about Hitler and Dahmer represented a red herring?
That’s yes or no, please.
I’m sure you were–though, the slovenliness of your thoughts and grammar, coupled with the goofy crypticism you’re fond of peddling, often make it difficult for even the simplest of your sentences to convey what they’re supposed to. But, as I said, I’m sure that you were. Yes?
If yes, I’ll bury the matter in a single post and be done with it.[/quote]
slovenliness is definitely inaccurate, but the goofy crypticism I enjoy very much indeed
You demand that I withhold the goofy crypticism for a second - I will do that, and answer your question. Then I will explain to you why the goofy crypticism is so fun, and further how it even serves a purpose at times
No, I was not insinuating anything about you. I was not even thinking about you specifically until you replied to me, much less that post in particular
The thread had taken a few wrong turns in my opinion, and it was feeding frenzy time. Just about the perfect time for me to say what I did. It was a ‘statement’ so goofy and cryptic, it could have been construed to mean anything, and was designed that many in there psychological states at that time would do so. To try and hold me to the nonexistent ‘claim’ you saw in that post is just biting the bait
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^
Were you or were you not insinuating that my post about Hitler and Dahmer represented a red herring?
That’s yes or no, please.
I’m sure you were–though, the slovenliness of your thoughts and grammar, coupled with the goofy crypticism you’re fond of peddling, often make it difficult for even the simplest of your sentences to convey what they’re supposed to. But, as I said, I’m sure that you were. Yes?
If yes, I’ll bury the matter in a single post and be done with it.[/quote]
slovenliness is definitely inaccurate, but the goofy crypticism I enjoy very much indeed
You demand that I withhold the goofy crypticism for a second - I will do that, and answer your question. Then I will explain to you why the goofy crypticism is so fun, and further how it even serves a purpose at times
No, I was not insinuating anything about you. I was not even thinking about you specifically until you replied to me, much less that post in particular
The thread had taken a few wrong turns in my opinion, and it was feeding frenzy time. Just about the perfect time for me to say what I did. It was a ‘statement’ so goofy and cryptic, it could have been construed to mean anything, and was designed that many in there psychological states at that time would do so. To try and hold me to the nonexistent ‘claim’ you saw in that post is just biting the bait[/quote]
I doubt very much that you didn’t have me at least partially in mind there, since my own post was embedded in the quotations of your own. I could also see very clearly how what I’d written could be (unappositely) called a red herring. One of the most misunderstood and inaccurately identified fallacies, I add.
More generally–you may think it’s clever to toss some cryptic rusty wrench into the wheel every once in a while, but it really isn’t. I could jump into each political discussion on the face of the planet with some or another bit of self-satisfied imprecision and then, when challenged on the details, give a hearty HA! and declare myself unbeholden to intellectual honesty and philosophical precision. Because, you know, I was just tossing wrenches. But what would be the point? The fun of debate is in thinking clearly and engaging unabashedly, and you seem lazily confident that neither of those two things would do you any good. So I excuse myself from the slovenly (and yes, slovenly fits like a fist in the eye) fatuity of going back and forth with a (presumably) grown man who takes the lion’s share of his pride in his “slipperiness.”
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Whatever little I said there is just about as little as I came here to say
Not just the thread, I’m talking about my purpose in these forums
You’re not my friend - heh[/quote]
Cryptically goofy, self-important, and empty–check, check, and check.
[/quote]
Thank you very much for doing exactly what I thought and (admittedly) hoped you would
I’m working on something else for my buddy Severiano, which you probably will not enjoy. Hope you enjoy[/quote]
: )
You responded exactly as I knew you would.
The bait has been taken.
I would thank you, but in the end–when my final plan is made actual and the numinous workings of its meticulous innards have been laid bare for all to look upon in weepy understanding–I suspect that you’ll be thanking me. You be thank me be will thanking be plan thank–got that?
Enjoy. Or, at the very least, pay attention. Just remember: The night is darkest before the dawn, but not if your eyes are made of sunlight. Incongruous steam-powered fish will have their day anew. I was never the eggman after all.