Subject:
|
Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:25:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1072 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > >
> > > > > I still think that education should be based on ability to learn. I still
> > > > > think that healthcare should be based on need.
> > > >
> > > > In an abstract sense, do we agree on this?
> > >
> > > If "we" includes "me", then no.
> >
> > A well reasoned response.
>
> My default in interpreting your words is to assume sarcastic intent. If you
> actually were complimenting me, sorry... but otherwise:
>
> What is the issue? Seems a pretty clear cut answer to a question.
Sure, you gave an answer. It is not reasoned though. Despite that, I do see
a contradiction in your response - not a big one. I'd still be interested in
Chris's reply.
> Was it
> that you didn't want anyone to answer it other than Chris? If so, why post
> it instead of email it?
>
> > > More generally, I'd like to see a cite of a .debate post where you admitted
> > > you changed your mind about something that you had been exposed to here. I
> > > may have missed it. You need to be a bit crisper sometimes, something that's
> > > been repeatedly pointed out to you.
> > >
> > > I realise coming up with a cite for something that happened a while back is
> > > hard given search is currently non available. So I'd take your word for it
> > > if you could name the topic and what you changed your mind about.
> >
> > Go back an read my reply to Chris.
>
> That's not a very crisp cite.
It was my reply to the question _you_ quoted. Did you even read my reply
before your last post to me? I doubt it.
> You've had a lot of replies to Chris. I went
> up thread and found this:
>
> > Getting back to your point, I think I once said the LP gaining power would
> > result in slavery - was I not shown to be wrong on this?
>
> Was that what you were referring to? My recollection of that particular
> debate thread was that it petered out in a maze of snipes without any
> admission on your part of incorrectness, you just sort of dropped it, then
> sniped something else later.
That is you view - not my own.
>
> Dropping something doesn't mean admitting incorrectness. At least not to me
> it doesn't. I let things go all the time. Especially your snipes. That
> doesn't mean that they are suddenly correct.
Larry, I was shown to be _W R O N G_. I agreed that I was _W R O N G_.
>
> If that wasn't what you meant, feel free to crisp up the reference.
>
> > > Now, you may choose not to answer which is fine, but until you do, I don't
> > > believe your earlier assertion to Chris.
From http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7476
=+=
> > 2. Slave
> > Under libertarian principles, would one have the right sell oneself into
> > slavery?
>
> I'm not sure where the LP comes down on this, but I'll take a shot at • it.
> If certain rights, such as liberty, cannot be forfeit, then slavery cannot
> be entered into, even voluntarily.
Fair point.
=+=
It was Dave Schuler who was good enough to corrected me. To be honest, I
should really have researched this further. But, I still think it would show
that I was wrong.
> >
> > Which assertion was this? Can you at least give the date Chris posted it?
>
> Today. But if you say you didn't assert to Chris that you have ever admitted
> you changed your mind about anything raised in .debate, I retract the claim
> that you did make such an assertion.
I don’t follow this.
>
> > > You also might re-read Paul Baluch's excellent post about good debating.
>
> > Why, does he suggest I not ask a staight question - which is just what the
> > post you replied to was? Does he suggest one avoids making a reasoned
> > response - that is just what you did.
>
> He suggests that one ignore sniping. He suggests that not being able to
> restate your points cogently is poor debating. He suggests that trying to
> score points is bad. He suggests that responders aren't obligated to answer
> every passing snipe and ill formed reference.
The post you replied to had only _one_ point. You used the post as a vehicle
to wind me up - pure and simple. Disruptive. I find it rather ironic that
you are lecturing me on how to debate However, I doubt you will claim to be
perfect yourself – would you?
>
> > Was there any point to your post Larry <snip> ?
You are deleting my text rather than answer it... again!
>
> Yes. To try to get you to admit that something about what Paul said applies
> to you, to try to reform your poor habits, or to get you to stop posting
> (nonproductive posts) to .debate. Any one of the three would be fine.
As I view it, your last two posts to me have been non-productive.
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) My default in interpreting your words is to assume sarcastic intent. If you actually were complimenting me, sorry... but otherwise: What is the issue? Seems a pretty clear cut answer to a question. Was it that you didn't want anyone to answer (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
