 | | Re: Long walk off a short plank?
|
|
(...) But did he try to take the cobra on a walk? :-) Congo. For anyone that doesn't understand those cryptic words, the African Grey comes in two varieties: Congo and Timneh. The former is slightly larger and lighter, the latter is slightly smaller (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Go back and look since you clearly didn't bother to read it in the first place. (...) Another attempt at an emotional response: imply that emotional responses must be "touchy-feely" and therefore something of derision that you wouldn't use. (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) I thought it was an accurate summation of his position, and not a simplistic caricature at all, and I did not see any proof to the contrary, just the <delete> 'straw man arguement', and therefore my claim that 'calling it a straw man arguement (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Long walk off a short plank?
|
|
(...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Long walk off a short plank?
|
|
(...) Not even close. But this guy almost did: (URL) Congo or Timneh? (I assume Congo) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Long walk off a short plank?
|
|
(...) [ka-snippity] (...) end? ...not until the bird says it's time to go for a walk, *and you listen to him* ;-) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) You are exactly correct. What makes it a straw argument is the fact that you made a simplistic caricature of Richard's argument and then addressed it as though it was an accurate summation of his position. That is the very definition of a (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Long walk off a short plank?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) I just have fish .:Pout:. Oh, and a robot that sometimes follows me around the livingroom when it's so inclined. Dave (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Show me. Just don't say it's a false premise and clip it. It's like, 'I don't agree with that--it doesn't make scientific sense, therefore its false or invalid' which *is* the very nature of this discussion. I never wanted to invoke an (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Long walk off a short plank?
|
|
No, this isn't about science, or religion, or politics (though no doubt it will transmogrify into that if it goes on long enough, but that is another theory for another day). It's about..... (dramatic pause for effect) ...taking the dog for a walk. (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) wasn't saying you were making that assertion, noting how you argued ~against~ it. that viewpoint is shared by many here and zillions over the globe that humans are the only ones with souls, as we once thought we were the center of the physical (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: <snip> (...) Well, there's a movie called 'The 7 Year Itch'... ;) Dave K (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) I said "an emotional appeal", not emotions. I've clipped the rest of your paragraph because it was preceeding on a false premise. An emotional appeal is one that does not rely on fact, but instead tries to invoke an emotional response to gain (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Really? Do you have a convenient cite for this? I did some google searching, and only found 2nd or 3rd hand references of dubious quality. I have heard the 4-6 year thing before, but never from a particularly qualified source. It's also never (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) I believe that this is the intellectual hubris that Dave K is refering to when he talks about elevating science to godhood. By rejecting the notion that there might be anything science cannot address, you are attributing a universality to the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Just because you say it's a straw man, don't make it so. Quoteth Hop-Frog (...) Further quoteth (...) Not a straw man arguement--you state in the paragraph above that there will *always* be something new to study. How can you make that (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Then no problem. (...) I'm saying that many aspects of colour preference is quite inside the realm of scientific inquiry, just as stydying a candle and it's many psychological and physiological impacts on a human can, and *should* be studied (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) No, my mistake -- fair enough. James did state something very like your own statement. I read too quickly I guess...sorry. Mea culpa. (...) I suppose it could, but it would not (proving a negative, etc.). That's not the purpose of scientific (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change)
|
|
(...) This is why hypothetical situations fail, particularly when in relation to members of the opposite sex :). Thus far all that has been discussed is based upon a series of hypothetical people who all think that sex is something that is based (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) There is no such assertion being made by me. Human examples merely avoid the extra step of having to describe how one knows the experience of another species. I think I read "Ghost in the Machine" many, many years ago. A lot of the stuff that (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
