Libertarians should stop insulting cops

[Truth Warrior]

Another fine semantic, but substance free, argument.

You started this substance free crap here.

And the question is STILL unanswered.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Would Gandhi or Dr. King call police names? I don't think so, and neither should we.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZZaJ-iiqBA

Maybe you do, but I don't. I don't even talk with police, and if I do, I always cooperate.

 

[acptulsa]

You started this substance free crap here.

And the question is STILL unanswered.

How do you determine who wins a "discussion" of this type? I'm kind of new to them, so I must ask the master. Whoever posts last wins? That way we can rest assured that whoever comes closest to having an actual life loses? That it?

 

[Mini-Me]

I'm reposting this, since I refactored it greatly in the middle of you writing unsupported, baseless assertions that my reasons are invalid and fallacious. Seriously, unless you're actually trying to be a pain this morning/afternoon, you need to back up your arguments with substance instead of blankly accusing people of using logical fallacies despite all evidence to the contrary.

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 and/or make other unsupported accusations without seriously addressing either the issue of quoting out of context or my actual statements
4. End this line of discussion

 

[Truth Warrior]

How do you determine who wins a "discussion" of this type? I'm kind of new to them, so I must ask the master. Whoever posts last wins? That way we can rest assured that whoever comes closest to having an actual life loses? That it?

Nope! I'm not playing "win/lose", I'm playing truth.

( BTW, that's HOW questions asked are answered. )

And the question is STILL unanswered.

 

[acptulsa]

Nope! I'm not playing "win/lose", I'm playing truth.

( BTW, that's HOW questions asked are answered. )

And the question is STILL unanswered.

Anyone who posts more links to dictionary.com than any other source is playing semantics <IMHO>:o

 

[Truth Warrior]

I'm reposting this, since I refactored it greatly in the middle of you writing unsupported, baseless assertions that my reasons are invalid and fallacious. Seriously, unless you're actually trying to be a pain this morning/afternoon, you need to back up your arguments with substance instead of blankly accusing people of using logical fallacies despite all evidence to the contrary.



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 and/or make other unsupported accusations without seriously addressing either the issue of quoting out of context or my actual statements
4. End this line of discussion

That is in context.

 

[Mini-Me]

That is in context.

Obviously, quoting the entire post is sufficient for quoting in context. It is not necessary for quoting in context. You're failing to grasp the crucial difference. If a man owes another man a dollar, it's sufficient to give him ten dollars...but it's not necessary, because it's also sufficient to give him just one. In order to reasonably prove that I quoted you out of context, you must demonstrate that the specific statements I omitted would have in some way affected whether or not your "voter = statist" statement should be taken as a general comment on all voters. You have consistently failed to demonstrate this, because there's no supporting evidence for it. Instead, you continue to parrot a gross misunderstanding of what quoting out of context actually means.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Anyone who posts more links to dictionary.com than any other source is playing semantics <IMHO>:o

Incorrect! The dictionary links are an implied invitation to choose a standard definition of the word or phrase in question. So that I then may know where the "postee" is coming from and therefore respond accordingly and appropriately.

Purpose: To avoid and prevent mere semantic disputes.

And the question is STILL unanswered.

 

[acptulsa]

Incorrect! The dictionary links are an implied invitation to choose a standard definition of the word or phrase. So that I then may know where the "postee" is coming from and therefore respond accordingly and appropriately.

Purpose: To avoid and prevent mere semantic disputes.

And the question is STILL unanswered.

And will you answer a question? Like, which thesarus is it that lists 'context' as a synonym for 'entirety'?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Obviously, quoting the entire post is sufficient for quoting in context. It is not necessary for quoting in context. You're failing to grasp the crucial difference. If a man owes another man a dollar, it's sufficient to give him ten dollars...but it's not necessary, because it's also sufficient to give him just one. In order to reasonably prove that I quoted you out of context, you must demonstrate that the specific statements I omitted would have in some way affected whether or not your "voter = statist" statement should be taken as a general comment on all voters. You have consistently failed to demonstrate this, because there's no supporting evidence for it. Instead, you continue to parrot a gross misunderstanding of what quoting out of context actually means.

Sorry, I don't buy it. You have to go to more work in order to get it WRONG.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

 

[Truth Warrior]

And will you answer a question? Like, which thesarus is it that lists 'context' as a synonym for 'entirety'?

After you answer mine, I will be happy to answer yours. I think it's called "discussion". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussion


And the question is STILL unanswered.

 

[acptulsa]

After you answer mine, I will be happy to answer yours.

No deal. After I go to the trouble to give a thoughtful answer, all you'll be able to do is say "none of them" or lie. Hardly equitable.

 

[Truth Warrior]

No deal. After I go to the trouble to give a thoughtful answer, all you'll be able to do is say "none of them" or lie. Hardly equitable.

What is the question that you so stubbornly refuse to answer? I am merely asking for a precise quote of what I previously actually said.

And the question is STILL unanswered.

 

[Mini-Me]

Sorry, I don't buy it. You have to go to more work in order to get it WRONG.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

From the link you so graciously provided, emphasis added:

The practice of "quoting out of context", sometimes referred to as "contextomy," is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Quoting out of context is often a means to set up "straw man" arguments. Straw man arguments are arguments against a position which is not held by an opponent, but which may bear superficial similarity to the views of the opponent.

I did in fact remove some passages from the post I quoted. According to the very link you provided, removing passages is necessary, but not sufficient, for quoting out of context. To demonstrate that I quoted out of context, please explain how removing those passages in any way distorted the intended meaning of the specific line I was arguing against:

Do you vote? If so, you are a statist.<IMHO>

The meaning I got out of this is that regardless of who you were speaking to, you made a blanket statement that applies to any and all voters. First off, do you mean to tell me that you did not intend for the statement to come off that way? You have not yet said this outright. Secondly, if you DO mean to tell me that, you must then explain how any of the passages I removed might prove why my interpretation of your statement was incorrect. If you cannot do this, then you have completely and utterly failed to demonstrate how I supposedly quoted you out of context.

The particular line I spent my long post debating against was totally out of place and nonsensical in the context of your post. It was a statement that was logically disconnected from the context of the rest of your post...which is precisely why I addressed it in isolation instead of arguing with the rest of your post (which I largely agreed with, meaning there was no sense in arguing those other points).

 

[Truth Warrior]

From the link you so graciously provided, emphasis added:


Please explain how the passage I removed in any way distorts the intended meaning of the specific line I was arguing against:

The meaning I got out of this is that regardless of who you were speaking to, you made a blanket statement that applies to any and all voters. First off, do you mean to tell me that you did not intend for the statement to come off that way? You have not yet said this outright. Secondly, if you DO mean to tell me that, you must then explain how any of the passages I removed might prove why my interpretation of your statement was incorrect. If you cannot do this, then you have completely and utterly failed to demonstrate how I supposedly quoted you out of context.

The particular line I spent my long post debating against was completely out of place and nonsensical in the context of your post. That's why I addressed it in particular and not the rest of your post (which actually WAS coherent, although it was logically disconnected from the particular line I objected to).

The extraction ONLY had it's intended meaning from within the full post context. You distoted it .<IMHO>

How many posts now, have we produced here on this bogus garbage?

 

[Mini-Me]

The extraction ONLY had it's intended meaning from within the full post context. You distoted it .<IMHO>

How many posts now, have we produced here on this bogus garbage?

For Pete's sake, explain in words HOW I distorted it...or concede the argument and admit that I didn't. Remember, you started this bogus garbage with unfounded accusations (which you continue to pursue by blankly asserting them over and over, without actually supporting them with evidence).

If you want to get anywhere with this, first answer this question flat out: Did you or did you not intend for your following statement to apply to all voters?

Do you vote? If so, you are a statist.<IMHO>

 

[acptulsa]

For Pete's sake, explain in words HOW I distorted it...or concede the argument and admit that I didn't.

From what I've seen, he considers that bad tactics. He'd much rather just outlast you with stubbornness and declare victory.

 

[Mini-Me]

From what I've seen, he considers that bad tactics. He'd much rather just outlast you with stubbornness and declare victory.

I never noticed this about him until today, but you're right. Then again, I can hardly blame him: Arguing the evidence is indeed a bad tactic when the evidence is not in your favor.

 

[Truth Warrior]

For Pete's sake, explain in words HOW I distorted it...or concede the argument and admit that I didn't.

I would if you hadn't, but you did. I know what I said and meant. I wrote it.

You got it wrong, on purpose, or maybe just out of ignorance.

Do you deserve the benefit of the doubt on which? NO!