Subject:
|
Re: LP POINT 3.2
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:11:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
858 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> I read that as he'll answer one point, when that is said and done, move on
> to another one, so he's ignoring all the ones after the first until their
> time comes.
What I actually said was this:
(from) http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7424
> Tell you what though, Scott. Pick one point, one thought, one item that
> you'd like to have a debate about. State it clearly, including the
> assumptions and premises behind it, and I'll have a debate with you about
> it. I'll let you know if you've stated it clearly enough to begin, once you
> do so.
and again:
(from) http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7440
> I'll repeat my offer though. If Scott picks one point or small topic and
> restates it clearly (start a new thread, Scott, don't just claim that you
> posted one and I didn't see it mixed in with all the snipes) INCLUDING his
> assumptions, I'll debate with him. That may well move the conversation in a
> direction most of us want it to go. I certainly am bored with it as it is
> now constituted.
Note the use (in both posts) of the word "pick". To *pick* ONE point is to
*choose* one that you think is significant. Not *many*
Scott has posted 6 and wants me to reply to all of them at once. In doing so
he's caused a huge mess because of his inability to follow directions. None
of them have their assumptions stated, by the way. My committment was to do
*one* after it was properly framed. I'm doing that. I'm glad that others
have decided to take up some of the rest, but that's not relevant.
Scott says 5 of them are "simple yes/no questions", which suggests that he
doesn't understand how to debate since under that line of reasoning, if the
answer to the question is provided, we're done.
And I already told him how to discover the answers, if all he wants is that.
Start from the LP premise that all rights are property rights and follow the
logical derivation. If he's a critical thinker, it's easy. Several people
here are competent to critique any derivation he may post and identify
errors in the derivation, if any... But he's having trouble with doing that,
or is unwilling to do it, for whatever reason.
But surely what he really means (and I acknowledge, judging intent is always
risky, and I try not to do it) is that once they are answered, he will then
use them as a springboard. What he SHOULD have done was wait till we
finished the first point instead of causing this huge mess, and *once it was
done*, instead of asking a "simple yes no question", he should have said
"the LP holds that hairdressers should be able to practice without licenses,
RESOLVED, this is wrong because..." instead of asking "does the LP hold that
hairdressers should be able to practice without licenses" or whatever the
item is, thus begging the question.
Reminder: Everyone gets to spend his free time as he chooses. I choose to
devote a certain limited amount of my free time to this, *and no more*.
Scott does not have a blank check on my time for me to educate him on how to
properly debate or for me to answer every silly snipe he raises. Why should
I? What is in it for me?
On the one point that I am responding to, I will make sure that every side
issue Scott raises is identified as such and deferred. I will do a depth
first drill down on that point and that point only. Scott has to learn how
to stay on topic.
Those are the conditions under which I undertake to even debate uncritical
thinkers.
My payment, such as it is, for doing this, is that either we will teach
Scott how to be a critical thinker, we will teach Scott not to engage in the
(mildly) antisocial behaviour of post-sniping, or Scott will leave
Lugnet.off-topic.debate, or at least stop causing huge messes in it.
It has happened before (when my analysis is questioned by critical thinkers
such as Matt M, Eric J, Dave!, Frank, Bruce S, etc.), although the thought
that Scott might be capable of identifying such, given his inability to
think critically, (or at least his inability to translate those thoughts to
posts here) is admittedly farfetched.
> Oh well, still think its unnecessary.
Nothing short of this, or short of *everyone* completely ignoring Scott
everywhere, was going to resolve this antisocial behaviour of his. Look at
his track record in admin.general (where it is much more important in the
scheme of things that one not be disruptive, after all being disruptive here
is not a big deal, really, one can safely ignore this whole group and not
miss much LEGO talk)... Snipe after snipe to the point where he exasperated
Todd. Todd may be stubborn but he does NOT anger easily, it takes a lot to
ruffle his feathers.
And this idea of mine might not work either. But I am not alone in disliking
his disruptive behaviour and his inability to think critically.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: LP POINT 3.2
|
| (...) Sqirmity squirm. (...) "Directions"? ROTFL. (...) Sqirmity squirm. (...) I think it is. I welcome it. It is gratifying to speak with individuals who are interested in addressing the points... rather than the crowd. "The man who follows the (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: LP POINT 3.2
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G4qF2F.EyC@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) should (...) Lar- I'm pretty much in agreement with what you said in your post. And sometimes I dunno why I keep skimming o-t.debate. :o) So (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LP POINT 3.2
|
| "Scott A" <s.arthur@hw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:G4p7xF.Dzv@lugnet.com... (...) I read that as he'll answer one point, when that is said and done, move on to another one, so he's ignoring all the ones after the first until their time comes. Oh (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
