Subject:
|
Re: LP POINT 3.2
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:35:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
842 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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*
Sqirmity squirm.
>
> 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.
"Directions"? ROTFL.
> None
> of them have their assumptions stated, by the way. My committment was to do
> *one* after it was properly framed.
Sqirmity squirm.
> I'm doing that. I'm glad that others
> have decided to take up some of the rest, but that's not relevant.
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 crowd will get no farther than the crowd. A man who
walks alone is likely to get places no one has ever been before."
Alan Ashley-Pitt
>
> 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.
I'm just trying to set the boundary conditions Larry. Stop sqirming, just
answer the points... if you can.
>
> 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.
Ok, your only freedom would be determined by the amount of property you
have. The consequence of this is that that someone with no property has no
freedom, and that the more property you have, the greater your freedom? In
other words a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom.
Therefore, the LP are saying that the best way of promoting freedom is to
allow some people to have more of it than others, even when this leads to
some having very little or even none?
> 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.
You are squirming - answer my points.
>
> 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?
Nothing, as you will not answer the points. To be honest, I'd rather you did
not, as your posts are becoming no more than noise to me. There are others
who appear to understand the issues, and are willing to talk them over -
which is what you appear unable to do.
It is time to put up, of shut up Larry.
>
> 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.
...and you must learn to answer my points Larry.
>
> 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.
Your payment will be enlightenment.
>
> 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.
Larry... stay on topic, and stay clear of personal attacks. Sticks and bones
shall break my bones, but names will never harm me.
>
> 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.
I ask you clear questions - you will not answer. I re-state my questions -
you still do not answer. You squirm, you avoid the point, you play to the
crowd, you waste my time - and you do not answer my points. Weak.
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LP POINT 3.2
|
| (...) What I actually said was this: (from) (URL)Tell you what though, Scott. Pick one point, one thought, one item that (...) and again: (from) (URL)I'll repeat my offer though. If Scott picks one point or small topic and (...) Note the use (in (...) (24 years ago, 28-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
|
|
|
|
