Libertarians should stop insulting cops

[Mini-Me]

Thread post # 50.

Ah, well in that case, we're on the same page. You addressed your post to The Moog Magician, but you drew all voters in by making a blanket statement about them, and I bit. To give another example illustrating why it made complete sense for me to do so (in addition to the "Anybody who wears brown is a douchebag" example), consider the following situation:
You're hanging out with a bunch of female friends. You tell your one female friend, "Your choice in cereal sucks. All women are whores. Count Chocula is clearly better than Cocoa Pebbles." Although you're only addressing one woman in the room, you just opened up the conversation to any or all of them by saying that all women are whores, because you actually made a derogatory statement that equally applied to all of them. Furthermore, if any of them now call you out on that particular statement, it doesn't make sense to say they're quoting you out of context, because the surrounding statements about cereal have no direct link to the "All women are whores" comment.

...come to think of it, in the hypothetical situation above, you also just opened up the conversation to anyone present who likes Cocoa Pebbles, because you just insulted their choice in cereal by saying it "sucks."

Anyway...if anything, I provided too much unrelated "context" when I quoted you, because I actually had no issue with the statement you made regarding the Nolan chart, etc. By leaving that part of the quote and saying I took issue with your statement, I was being a bit ambiguous in my first line as to which statement I was referring to. However, in the context of my entire post, I do believe it's obvious I was referring solely to the "voter = statist" comment...so no harm done there, I suppose.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Ah, well in that case, we're on the same page. You addressed your post to The Moog Magician, but you drew all voters in by making a blanket statement about them, and I bit. To give another example illustrating why it made complete sense for me to do so (in addition to the "Anybody who wears brown is a douchebag" example), consider the following situation:
You're hanging out with a bunch of female friends. You tell your one female friend, "Your choice in cereal sucks. All women are whores. Count Chocula is clearly better than Cocoa Pebbles." Although you're only addressing one woman in the room, you just opened up the conversation to any or all of them by saying that all women are whores, because you actually made a derogatory statement that equally applied to all of them. Furthermore, if any of them now call you out on that particular statement, it doesn't make sense to say they're quoting you out of context, because the surrounding statements about cereal have no direct link to the "All women are whores" comment.

...come to think of it, in the hypothetical situation above, you also just opened up the conversation to anyone present who likes Cocoa Pebbles, because you just insulted their choice in cereal by saying it "sucks."

Anyway...if anything, I provided too much unrelated "context" when I quoted you, because I actually had no issue with the statement you made regarding the Nolan chart, etc. By leaving that part of the quote and saying I took issue with your statement, I was being a bit ambiguous in my first line as to which statement I was referring to. However, in the context of my entire post, I do believe it's obvious I was referring solely to the "voter = statist" comment...so no harm done there, I suppose.

You "suppose" incorrectly. Understandable though, from an "out of context" extraction quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

 

[acptulsa]

You "suppose" incorrectly. Understandable though, from an "out of context" extraction quote.

So, I should "take you literally" when you say you "aren't interested in semantics"? Or was some of that out of context?

 

[Truth Warrior]

So, I should "take you literally" when you say you "aren't interested in semantics"? Or was some of that out of context?

What did I literally say?

 

[acptulsa]

What did I literally say?

as usual.

 

[Truth Warrior]

as usual.

as usual you do not answer the questions.

 

[Mini-Me]

You "suppose" incorrectly. Understandable though, from an "out of context" extraction quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

Wait, so you thought I was arguing in any way to the unbolded parts of the quote below?

I'm sorry, but I am unable to accept nor believe your claimed position on the Nolan chart. Do you vote? If so, you are a statist.<IMHO>

If so, then I did "suppose incorrectly," and there was in fact harm done by me including too many extraneous statements, thereby making my quibble ambiguous. That would have understandably made you think I was quoting your "Nolan chart" statement out of context and arguing with it without regard to all of the supporting evidence for it in your post. However, I was actually not arguing with your "Nolan chart" statement at all! In fact, I agree with you on it. My post centered solely on the last (bolded) part of the quote, which stands apart from the rest of your post as a fully-formed and context-insensitive idea. In other words, assuming this is how you took my post, I did not actually quote out of context - you merely thought I did. My true error was almost the polar opposite to quoting out of context...by providing so many superfluous statements in the quote that it became ambiguous which one statement I actually took issue with.

On the other hand, if you did not think I was referring to the unbolded parts, then I indeed supposed correctly that no harm was done by mistakenly including them.

Either way, I didn't quote out of context.

 

[acptulsa]

as usual you do not answer the questions.

http://www.google.com/

 

[Ozwest]

Would "literal" mean avoiding exaggeration or embellishment ?

The abuse of anything is no argument against the use of it...

Not.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Wait, so you thought I was arguing in any way to the unbolded parts of the quote below?


If so, then I did "suppose incorrectly," and there was in fact harm done by me including too many extraneous statements, thereby making my quibble ambiguous. That would have understandably made you think I was quoting your "Nolan chart" statement out of context and arguing with it without regard to all of the supporting evidence for it in your post. However, I was actually not arguing with your "Nolan chart" statement at all! In fact, I agree with you on it. My post centered solely on the last (bolded) part of the quote, which stands apart from the rest of your post as a fully-formed and context-insensitive idea. In other words, assuming this is how you took my post, I did not actually quote out of context - you merely thought I did. My true error was almost the polar opposite to quoting out of context...by providing so many superfluous statements in the quote that it became ambiguous which one statement I actually took issue with.

On the other hand, if you did not think I was referring to the unbolded parts, then I indeed supposed correctly that no harm was done by mistakenly including them.

Either way, I didn't quote out of context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

We've now spent about 17 posts on this irrelevant stuff. If you want to comment on one of my posts, please quote it in it's entirety, before you do.

Is that really so much to ask?

 

[Mini-Me]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

We've now spent about 17 posts on this irrelevant stuff. If you want to comment on one of my posts, please quote it in it's entirety, before you do.

Is that really so much to ask?

Yes, it is - I'm not going to waste space quoting arguments on unrelated topics that are entirely inconsequential to my point of contention. I'm only going to post actual context, and you've yet to provide any convincing argument as to why the stuff I left out should in any way be considered valid context. Remember, you are the one who started this useless string of posts in the first place by blankly accusing me of quoting out of context. I believed that your "voter = statist" statement stood alone as a general statement pertaining to anybody who votes, and you have yet to disprove that belief or in any way demonstrate why the surrounding supposed "context" I left out in any way makes that belief untrue. Instead, you're continually referring me to a wikipedia article (that I apparently know better than you do) without making any reasoned argument as to why I actually used that logical fallacy (as opposed to merely snipping extraneous crap that doesn't pertain to my argument). Posting the wikipedia link over and over does not count as a reasoned argument. By incessantly pursuing this accusation without supporting it, you've also managed to avoid all of the initial arguments I made under the belief (which has not been proven false) that your "voter = statist" statement stands alone as a general statement and that the surrounding statements offer no mitigating context.

So, you have four options:

1. Explain rationally exactly why the supposed "context" I cut out is relevant and how it invalidates my belief that your "voter = statist" statement applies generally to all voters
2. Concede that I cut out no valid context, and address the actual arguments I made about why you really shouldn't be throwing around strong words like statist and applying them to groups of people as large as all voters...or outright say that you did not really mean to include all voters, and that you agree with the post I made.
3. Continue to link to a wikipedia article without making any reasoned argument regarding either the issue of quoting out of context or my actual statements
4. End this line of discussion

 

[Truth Warrior]

Would "literal" mean avoiding exaggeration or embellishment ?

The abuse of anything is no argument against the use of it...

Not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literal

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, it is - I'm not going to quote arguments on unrelated topics that are entirely inconsequential to my point of contention. I'm only going to post actual context, and you've yet to provide any convincing argument as to why the stuff I left out should in any way be considered valid context. Continually referring me to a wikipedia article that I apparently know better than you do, does not count as a well-constructed argument.

Yes, but your reasons ( rationalizations ) are invalid AND fallacious.

 

[acptulsa]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literal

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantic

 

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantic

Repeat unanswered question to you: What did I literally say?

Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling.

 

[acptulsa]

Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling.

Your denial is unconvincing.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Your denial is unconvincing.

And the question is STILL unanswered.

 

[acptulsa]

And the question is STILL unanswered.

Who died and appointed me the new Oracle at Delphi?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Who died and appointed me the new Oracle at Delphi?

And the question is STILL unanswered.

 

[acptulsa]

And the question is STILL unanswered.

Another fine semantic, but substance free, argument.