Subject:
|
Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Apr 2001 04:17:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
774 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Robert Bevens writes:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:28:56 GMT, "Bruce Schlickbernd"
> <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > Yeah, you're
> > > > > right, I'm wrong. That's what you're really looking for isn't it
> > > > > James? No need to feel ashamed if it is, I have no problems in
> > > > > letting you believe I'm wrong and you're right.
>
> > > > There no reason to say this except to let him know that you don't really
> > > > believe he's right and your wrong, i.e. you *do* have a problem letting him
> > > > believe you're wrong and he's right.
> > > >
> > > > Bruce
>
> > > Ahh, but that's only your interpretation of it, remember, I'm an
> > > experienced social engineer. Given that you really can't say what I
> > > really mean or think.
>
> > More sophistries. And yes, I can say it (there it is above). Not only
> > that, I'm right.
>
> Let's keep you thinking that way, shall we?
That's a pretty pathetic comeback. I thought you said you are clever - I'd
figure you'd use something good for a stock phrase. I'm not impressed.
> > > That's not to say I'm trying to manipulate
> > > anybody, it just means I'm trying to control the way the debate
> > > unfolds.
>
> > You failed in your stated purpose. It seems you aren't as clever as you like
> > to think you are.
>
> I like how you say I failed in my stated purpose, but then fail to
> explain why. Not that it's any real surprise.
Oh, I'm sorry - you keep telling me how clever you are. I thought you could
figure it out. Here's a box of cookies while you think on it. Run along,
junior.
>
> > > In these debates I'm often times looking for specific
> > > emotions and feelings, that way I can better understand my opponents
> > > position.
>
> > Sometimes known as jerking people around. What's the point when you are
> > being so transparent about it? The only person you are fooling is yourself.
>
> If you say so.
Oh no, let's not take my word on it - anyone fooled by Robert's claim that,
"...I have no problems in letting you believe I'm wrong and you're right"?
Anyone actually believe his claim? See way up at the top or go back a few
messages.
See. I'm a fair guy.
>
> > > As I said before, I'm a Nihilist, so I don't really have an
> > > absolute opinion on anything, in either case. I could just as well be
> > > arguing the other side of the issue tomorrow, and I probably will.
>
> > So you'll be admitting that you were being a fraud tomorrow? Oh, how
> > condescending of you. :-)
> No, not at all.
So you won't be arguing the other side? What a surprise! Don't play poker
if your bluffs can be called so easily.
> When I take a side I try to argue and debate it as if
> I do truly believe in it.
No, you are just afraid to really take a position. You really are very
transparent.
> I'm not a fraud, I just don't have a set of
> beliefs that are written in stone.
But that means you don't believe the above - or you just lied.
> I try to redefine my beliefs and
> understanding through debating.
Why? To set your non-existent beliefs in stone? Or do you just get off on
jerking people around?
> However the best way I've found to do
> that is to argue against the side I'm actually in agreement with.
Sounds like intellectual masturbation.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
126 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
