Apple throws support behind Houston equal rights initiative

11011121315

Comments

  • Reply 281 of 301
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Did he say he was against homosexuality, or homosexuals? There's a big difference.

     

    There's really not a big difference in practical terms.  The book describes “homosexuality” and “lesbianism” as “sexual perversion[s]” morally equivalent to “pederasty” and “bestiality.” A gay or lesbian employee would be foolish to assume that they would be treated fairly by a supervisor who held those views.

  • Reply 282 of 301
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fred Maxwell View Post



    Chill out -- you're beginning to sound like Tallest Skil.  You linked to a publication that has been widely discredited -- even by its staff's own public statements.  According to Georgia Purdom, an AiG researcher, an article will not be published in ARJ if the the author's position is inconsistent with the book of Genesis. Ms. Purdom said that the peer-review process includes not only fact checking, but also 'faith checking.'  Everyone working with AiG must sign a Statement of Faith with declarations ranging from "The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ," to "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." That's not science, or even a good imitation of it. 



    You criticize mainstream science journals, but I've never seen one of them that required that authors sign a document stating that "the scientific aspects" of their work "are secondary to" denying the existence of God.  None of them required that authors sign a declaration stating that "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species."  And, even if there were such a journal, would you accept the articles in it as confirmation of evolution?




    Would a evolutionary/atheistic based organization hire a creationist? I highly doubt it.



    It's a clash of world views or starting points. The articles often consider the evolutionary worldview and explain the problems it has. They know both sides, but show how creation is viable and how science confirms it. In the end, testable, repeatable science can't prove origins, either evolutionary or creationary. When concerning origins, it's all about a person bias and starting assumptions.



    I missed this gem of a post. What on earth is an evolutionary/atheistic organization? Can you name one? Are you laboring under the misapprehension that there is a church of evolution? Silly question, of course you are, you have made that quite clear.

     

    But no, as Fred said, real journals and real research organizations do not care what your religion is as long as you are scientifically objective. I have worked with numerous scientists who are religious - they just have to park that side of their thinking outside when they come to work.

  • Reply 283 of 301
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Did he say he was against homosexuality, or homosexuals? There's a big difference.

    There's really not a big difference in practical terms.  The book describes “homosexuality” and “lesbianism” as “sexual perversion(s)” morally equivalent to “pederasty” and “bestiality.” A gay or lesbian employee would be foolish to assume that they would be treated fairly by a supervisor who held those views.

    Sexual perversion is any sex that's not regular intercourse. Anal and oral sex are sexual perversions regardless of the genders involved.
  • Reply 284 of 301

    Quote:


    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post



    Sexual perversion is any sex that's not regular intercourse. Anal and oral sex are sexual perversions regardless of the genders involved.

     

    Why did you strike-through most of my post?  It was an accurate description of what the FD chief wrote, and over which he was fired. 

     

    As to your personal definition of "sexual perversion," it's does not align well with medical dictionaries:  "Sexual perversions are conditions in which sexual excitement or orgasm is associated with acts or imagery that are considered unusual within the culture."

  • Reply 285 of 301
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Quote:
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Sexual perversion is any sex that's not regular intercourse. Anal and oral sex are sexual perversions regardless of the genders involved.

    Why did you strike-through most of my post?  It was an accurate description of what the FD chief wrote, and over which he was fired. 

    As to your personal definition of "sexual perversion," it's does not align well with medical dictionaries:  "Sexual perversions are conditions in which sexual excitement or orgasm is associated with acts or imagery that are considered unusual within the culture."

    I didn't. I thought maybe you did. That's weird.
  • Reply 286 of 301
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    I didn't. I thought maybe you did. That's weird.



    Okay.  Thanks for letting me know and straightening it out.

  • Reply 287 of 301
    Originally Posted by Fred Maxwell View Post

    So you were wrong and I proved it.




    The exact opposite happened. Learn how to read.

     

    And yet again false accusations of fallacies.


     

    You misrepresented my position. Definitionally a fallacy.

     
    That is an accurate characterization of what you are trying to do -- just as you did when FineWine called you on it.

     

    And yet no such thing has occurred, as I explained–in excruciating detail–why he was wrong on that point.

     

    All I have to do is prove that you cited (well plagiarized actually) him as an authority when he is not one.


     

    And yet that is not an appeal to authority, by the definition of the phrase.

     
    But since you seem so enamored with his claims

     

    I couldn’t care less about him. Either refute the statements themselves or concede the point.

     

    I realize that you are still bitter about me having cited four separate sources that proved you wrong



     

    You seem to think that I am the sole defining authority on this or any other matter, and that’s where you’re going wrong. It’s not about me being wrong. It’s about the words being wrong. The words you claim are the definition of ‘appeal to authority’ are wrong. Appeal to authority is a fallacy regardless of the authoritativeness of the claimed authority.

     

    A man can spend his whole life on a subject, receive endless accolades, be republished, printed, and quoted, and still not be correct when it comes to that subject.

     

    A man can have no formal training in a subject, be blackballed and slandered by his peers, and his words made illegal to speak. Yet he can still be correct.

     

    So either refute the content or concede. You’ve already lost since you refuse to refute the content. The concession is a matter of honor. I’m trying to save you your honor.

     

    There was nothing to refute



     

    And yet you refuse to refute what I actually posted. Here it is again. And again. And again. And again. And again

     

    You’ll do nothing. The concept of ‘common knowledge’ is admissible in any topic. The incredulity came from your lack thereof. Appeals to authority can come from actual authorities. You did not know this.

     

    It was you who refused to answer pertinent questions like "Why is it bad for inflation and wages to rise at a rate of 3% per year?  How does that, in any way, reduce the purchasing power of the consumer?"



     

    Perpetual equalization of wages to inflation ends with monetary amounts in the hundreds of trillions to purchase a stick of gum. My point has always been to stop putting bandages on bullet wounds and fix the underlying problem of the system; hence why I’ve been generally ignoring things that are not this save to say they are not. Explain why it is better to perpetually inflate and build a system around an ever changing policy than to build a stable system.

     

    No, we were not having a good debate.  I was debating like an adult and you acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum.  



     

    Quite honestly, it sounds like the exact opposite since you seem to be hounding on this point and literally the only thing I’ve cared about is refuting the content.

     

    I did, and you ignored them.


     

    Again: My point has always been to stop putting bandages on bullet wounds and fix the underlying problem of the system; hence why I’ve been generally ignoring things that are not this save to say they are not.

     

    Additionally, on this point directly, I will state that I am not in favor of a government which regulates the success of its citizens. I am in favor of citizens with the mindfulness to avoid the things with which they morally disagree. Thus you would see the market refuse such things.

     
     I put this one in context

     

    I’m still not sure of your point, since you’ve neither refuted my claim (here) nor the initial incredulity (which I proved justified).

     



    No, I am not going to serve as your free remedial English teacher and/or Google operator.



     

    Thankfully I’ve already done it for you. And whether you are too lazy or prideful to click and read the links (or my earlier post doing the same) is of no consequence, as anyone else reading this won’t be, will click them, and will see.

     

    So you lied.  I did not misrepresent your position.


     


     

    You literally just did it again, claiming I lied, when it takes seconds to reread (well, read) posts.

     
     There were no quotes you could provide.

     

    I find it hilarious that you would chastise me for something you yourself did ONE sentence earlier!

     

    No, I am not going to serve as your free remedial English teacher and/or Google operator.


     

    Ha! That’s humor.

     


    And, in a debate, it is your responsibility to provide proof for the claims you make

     

    So funny.

     

    Yes, it is an example





    It is definitionally not an example, as explained immediately in reply to it.

     


    here is your complete challenge:


     

    Which you did not read.

     

    No, that’s not an ad hominem...


     

    My English is not stunted. Stunted: slowed or stopped abnormally in growth or development. As the development of English comprehension skills is necessary to the proper understanding of a debate, you libel my personal abilities to demean my position. Thus, ad-hominem.

     
     ...irrelevant fact about you.

     

    Ad-homs pertain not only to irrelevancy, but with your flawed understanding of the definition of other fallacies, I am not surprised that this is your impression thereof.

     

    Maybe the big numbers are confusing you.



     

    You ARE funny! A riot! Are you doing this just to see how much you can get away with? Do you find yourself smug when writing such obvious contradictions? Twice now in one post, and both so close to one another. What does it say when someone as stunted as me can pick up on it? You’d better watch out if REAL people are reading these posts!

     
    If I give you ten flashlights and eight of them fail, that is not a 100% failure rate.

     

    If I give you ten flashlights, nine of them have had their batteries die, and the batteries of the tenth are still being used, THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOUR BATTERIES WILL LAST UNTIL THE HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE. For someone so humorous, you’re not very good at forward thinking.

     

    So, now you answer my question:


     

    Your question, I repeat, is irrelevancy borne of ignorance.

     

    I'm really not interested in your opinion of me as you are my inferior, both in knowledge and intellect.


     

    Oh, yeah. Smug was the right word.

  • Reply 288 of 301

    @Tallest Skil

     

    Quote:


    So you were wrong and I proved it.
    Quote:

    The exact opposite happened. Learn how to read.





     

    I was reading at a college level when I was tested in fifth grade.  As an adult, I've been published in popular magazines and professional technical journals and served as a consultant to Fortune 500 publisher where I checked volumes in a book series for accuracy.  I'm not the one with the reading comprehension issues.

     

    Quote:



    You misrepresented my position. Definitionally a fallacy.


     

    Your inability to produce a quote supporting your claim of misrepresentation shows otherwise. 

     

    Quote:



    That is an accurate characterization of what you are trying to do -- just as you did when FineWine called you on it.

    Quote:

    And yet no such thing has occurred, as I explained–in excruciating detail–why he was wrong on that point.





     

    No, you did nothing of the kind.  I read what you wrote in reply and it failed completely as a refutation.  

     

    Quote:

    I couldn’t care less about him. Either refute the statements themselves or concede the point.



     

    There are pages of refutations available here:  http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html

     

    I'm not wading through pages of that homophobic tripe when others have already done so and found numerous errors or, more likely, intentional false statements to further his bigoted agenda.

     

    Quote:

    You seem to think that I am the sole defining authority on this or any other matter, and that’s where you’re going wrong.



     

    You've proven yourself unable to even understand definitions, so you're clearly not a "defining authority."

     

    Quote:

    It’s not about me being wrong. It’s about the words being wrong. The words you claim are the definition of ‘appeal to authority’ are wrong. Appeal to authority is a fallacy regardless of the authoritativeness of the claimed authority.



     

    From your own link:

    "It is important to note that the fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus."

     

    Quote:

    The concept of ‘common knowledge’ is admissible in any topic.


     

    What you claim to be "common knowledge" is not.  

     

    Quote:

    Perpetual equalization of wages to inflation ends with monetary amounts in the hundreds of trillions to purchase a stick of gum.



     

    Not a problem.  Just distribute larger denomination coins and bills.  If a stick of gum is a single coin earned in the same minute or two of work as now, no one will care.

     

    Quote:

    My point has always been to stop putting bandages on bullet wounds and fix the underlying problem of the system; hence why I’ve been generally ignoring things that are not this save to say they are not.

     



     

    It's not your place to declare what the "underlying problem" is, ignoring arguments to the contrary.  If you want to have a debate, that's fine.  If you want to self-publish a manifesto on economics, then go here:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/seller-account/mm-summary-page.html?topic=200260520

     

    Quote:

    Explain why it is better to perpetually inflate and build a system around an ever changing policy than to build a stable system.



     

    Because the former is real and the latter is imaginary, based on some fantasy world in there are never recessions, shortages, price fluctuations on imported goods, demand for our exported goods, natural disasters, wars, or anything else that happens in the real world.  The closer the inflation rate is to 0%, the less room the Federal Reserve has to reduce interest rates as a stimulus measure when there's an inevitable economic downturn.  Further, if we stabilized everything at 0% inflation today, it would increase the real debt carried by businesses and individuals (at 3% annual inflation, paying off the principal of a $10,000 loan a year after you took it out has an inflation-adjusted cost of cost of $9,708.74).

     

    By your own admission, stabilizing the inflation rate at 0% (presumably by the magic of unicorns) would not cause employers to increase pay to workers, leaving the workers no more able to meet their expenses than they are today.  

     

    Which gets us back to where we started. Real, inflation-adjusted, worker pay has been reduced, primarily to fund increases in executive compensation.  Middle class workers get a much lower percentage of the GDP than they did in decades past while the wealthy get far, far more.

     

    Quote:

    Thankfully I’ve already done it for you. And whether you are too lazy or prideful to click and read the links (or my earlier post doing the same) is of no consequence, as anyone else reading this won’t be, will click them, and will see.



     

    Why should I accept your links as being definitive when you rejected mine?  Besides, citing those links is, by your own definition of the term, an appeal to authority.  So we must settle this by me claiming that you are wrong and you claiming that I am wrong until one of us dies from old age.  

     

    Quote:

    There were no quotes you could provide.

    Quote:

    I find it hilarious that you would chastise me for something you yourself did ONE sentence earlier!





     

    I did not accuse you of misrepresenting my position and then refuse to provide a quote.  So you just lied.

     

    Quote:

    And, in a debate, it is your responsibility to provide proof for the claims you make

    Quote:

    So funny.





     

    No, it's not "funny," it's fact. 

     

    Quote:

    here is your complete challenge:

    Quote:

    Which you did not read.





     

    It's not my fault that you wrote something stupid:

     

    Quote:

    The claim on the table is that ~3800 fiat currencies have collapsed. Show me one that didn’t. Should be pretty easy.


     

    Of course it's easy, since almost 100% of the currencies in circulation today are fiat currencies!  So my answer of "The Swiss Franc." answered your challenge.  So quit your whining and move along.

     

    Quote:

    My English is not stunted. Stunted: slowed or stopped abnormally in growth or development. As the development of English comprehension skills is necessary to the proper understanding of a debate, you libel my personal abilities to demean my position. Thus, ad-hominem.



     

    In answer to your claim of libel, I present the following from the American Bar Association:  "Defamation laws clearly focus on the concept of the person; when the defamatory statement is made using a pseudonym, courts generally require that plaintiffs prove that the public was aware that the statement attached to them personally."

     

    It's not an ad-hominem because I did not do it to undermine, or cast doubt on, your argument. I wrote it as I was answering an awkwardly constructed sentence leaving me less than certain that you had conveyed the meaning that you had intended

     

    Quote:

    Ad-homs pertain not only to irrelevancy, but with your flawed understanding of the definition of other fallacies, I am not surprised that this is your impression thereof.



     

    Here you go:  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

     

    "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

  • Reply 289 of 301

     

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    Quote:

    The thought that faith could be lost in the US dollar is unsubstantiated when every single fiat currency in the history of human civilization eventually has its faith lost? 

     

    By that argument, you should be an atheist, since man has created more than 2,800 deities over time and civilization has eventually lost its faith in just about all of them.

     

    If people losing faith in ~3,800 fiat currencies is a sure sign that they will lose faith in the US Dollar, why isn't people losing faith in >2,800 deities a sure sign that they lose faith in whichever ever deity you worship?

  • Reply 290 of 301
    Originally Posted by Fred Maxwell View Post




    There are pages of refutations available here:  



     

    I do not see how this refutes either the results of the statements previously presented or the internal logic of the accompanying statements. Also, as I don’t know which of the previously presented information was assembled by the man to whom you’re applying a genetic fallacy, I can only say that I have multiple other sources of information presentable–which say the same thing–and thus undermine the claim that... wait, you never claimed that the information was wrong or showed such, did you? Only that it was wrong by proxy. Anyway, I have plenty of other sources that have nothing to do with your hate groups.

     

    "It is important to note that the fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus."


     

    Oh, look at that. Pulling a line out of context and replying to it as though it supports/defeats your argument. Hmm... Why does that phrase sound familiar.

     

    Meanwhile, there are statements such as this:

     

    A says P about subject matter S.

    A should be trusted about subject matter S.

    Therefore, P is correct.

     

    Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

     

    ...access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong...

     

    ...an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source... ...say it is right.

     

    which you so readily ignore.

     

    What you claim to be "common knowledge" is not.


     


     

    It is when the concept is brought up with the purpose of its use in discussion and not just as a reference to what the definition thereof is.

     

    If you’re going to be using something, it’s expected that you actually know something about it. Someone who says, “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously,” would have an understanding of English grammar but not of the definitions of the words therein.

     
    Not a problem. Just distribute larger denomination coins and bills.

     

    Yeah, we’ll just have to differ there.

     

    ...no one will care.


     

    No one will care that their old currency is less than worthless and that they’ll have to perpetually exchange it for ever larger denominations? You’ll only reply that the speed of inflation makes such worries moot without regard to the concept itself.

     

    It's not your place to declare what the "underlying problem" is


     

    Of course not. I’m saying the disconnect from physical limitations on the production and scope of currency is the underlying problem because it is the underlying problem, not because it is my desire or opinion that it be so.

     
    ignoring arguments to the contrary.

     

    I have only ignored your arguments insofar as they would be irrelevant to the point being discussed. Income inequality is possibility within any economic foundation, and is not intrinsically related to any one system. As such, it is not the problem with any given system.

     

    Because the former is real and the latter is imaginary, based on some fantasy world in there are never recessions, shortages, price fluctuations on imported goods, demand for our exported goods, natural disasters, wars, or anything else that happens in the real world.



     

    So why did physically-backed currency work so well for the 13,000 years of human history in which it was used? And why has fiat universally failed in the same time?

     
    ...the less room the Federal Reserve has...

     

    Quite honestly, the less anything the Federal Reserve has, the better.

     


    By your own admission, stabilizing the inflation rate at 0% (presumably by the magic of unicorns) would not cause employers to increase pay to workers, leaving the workers no more able to meet their expenses than they are today.




     

    Right, because again, income inequality does not depend on the system being used.

     

    Why should I accept your links as being definitive when you rejected mine?



     

    I guess that depends on the definition of truth, doesn’t it? No consensus can be reached between people when one knows of the existence of objective truth and the other believes that everything is relative. It also depends on the definition of words. As I said earlier, if you believe that an appeal to authority only occurs when someone who is not an “actual authority” (a phrase which is predicated on the knowledge of the existence of objective truth) is quoted, then you believe that anything any actual authority has said is true.

     

    With knowledge of the existence of objective truth, an “actual authority” would be a person who repeats said truths. Anyone who does not repeat said truths would, then, not be an actual authority. If they are perceived to be an authority, do not state objective truth, and are quoted as being correct, that is an appeal to their authority, not to the content of their statements.

     
    So my answer of "The Swiss Franc." answered your challenge.

     

    It did no such thing, as has been shown.

  • Reply 291 of 301
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Besides, citing those links is, by your own definition of the term, an appeal to authority.

    Not when the information presented thereon isn’t wrong, of course.


     

    That is a great example of the level of immature bickering that you have been trying to pass off as debate.  When I post a link, it's an appeal to authority and when you do, it's not an appeal to authority because you decree that the information at your link "isn't wrong." 

     

    After conceding a handful of points early on left a bitter taste in your mouth, you decided that you would no longer be just a debate participant; you would also serve as the debate's sole moderator and judge.  Beyond that, you would be the self-appointed arbiter of which statements and sources were correct and which were not. Your answers, when you elected to provide them, became terse, petulant, and often amounted to nothing more than unsubstantiated declarations that you were right and/or that I was wrong.  When an honest answer would have revealed that you were wrong, you simply lied or ignored the question entirely.  When called out for lying, you just doubled down, repeating the lie over and over.  When debating the topic went poorly for you, you resorted to calling every piece of evidence an "appeal to authority" and every criticism of your behavior an "ad hominem."

     

    So I'm not going to waste more of my time, and more of Apple Insider's bandwidth and storage, playing your juvenile games. 

     

    Quote:

    Because I’m not worthy of such “kindness”, I imagine.



     

    I'm going to extend a kindness to you, in spite of the reprehensible way that you have behaved. Turn off your computer and get counseling. You're depressed, lonely, frustrated, and angry to the point of irrationality. Something has gone very wrong in your life and posting almost 39,000 messages on AppleInsider has not fixed it. Lashing out at countless strangers online has not provided you solace  This isn't the profile page of a mentally healthy adult man:

     

  • Reply 292 of 301
    Originally Posted by Fred Maxwell View Post

    When I post a link, it’s an appeal to authority...

     

    Just try reading posts before replying to them. If you read them and don’t understand them, ask for clarification.

     

    ...you decree that the information at your link “isn’t wrong.” 

     



     

    So I take it you have zero objection to the chain of logic in the content of these paragraphs? 

     

    I guess that depends on the definition of truth, doesn’t it? No consensus can be reached between people when one knows of the existence of objective truth and the other believes that everything is relative. It also depends on the definition of words. As I said earlier, if you believe that an appeal to authority only occurs when someone who is not an “actual authority” (a phrase which is predicated on the knowledge of the existence of objective truth) is quoted, then you believe that anything any actual authority has said is true.

     

    With knowledge of the existence of objective truth, an “actual authority” would be a person who repeats said truths. Anyone who does not repeat said truths would, then, not be an actual authority. If they are perceived to be an authority, do not state objective truth, and are quoted as being correct, that is an appeal to their authority, not to the content of their statements.

     

    And, as such, agree with me as to the existence of objective truth, the implementation thereof, and therefore the definition of appeal to authority? Because you’re not behaving as though you do, but you didn’t give a refutation for them.

     

    ...you decided that you would no longer be just a debate participant; you would also serve as the debate’s sole moderator and judge.


     

    I can’t see where you’re getting that.

     


    Beyond that, you would be the self-appointed arbiter of which statements and sources were correct and which were not.



     

    What is it with you and miscomprehension of authority? If someone repeats something that is true, that does not mean the thing is true because he said it was.

     

    So I'm not going to waste more of my time, and more of Apple Insider's bandwidth and storage, playing your juvenile games. 


     

    All the posts are there. Everyone can see that the preceding paragraph was a complete fabrication. You’ll want to seek help for that delusion of yours.

     
    Turn off your computer and get counseling.
     


     

    So just more ad-homs, then. Can’t refute the initial information, can’t refute the arguments created from the information, and won’t even acknowledge the proof of a lack of refutation for either point. Insults based on post count, insults based on a lack of understanding, insults based on irrelevancies. Good luck with that.

     

    Do you even acknowledge the existence of objective truth?

  • Reply 293 of 301
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

    {deleted out of shame for how I was so thoroughly defeated}



    You have won this debate.  You have been right from the beginning and I have been wrong all along.  I've engaged in ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority throughout.  I have lied repeatedly and misrepresented your position over and over.  I lack reading comprehension and cannot match your keen intellect or vast knowledge.  I hope that this brings you some comfort.

  • Reply 294 of 301
    Originally Posted by Fred Maxwell View Post

    You have won this debate.

     

    It’s not about winning. What on Earth gave you that impression? It’s about truth. In matters of objectivity, there is no debate.

     

     I've engaged in ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority throughout.  I have lied repeatedly and misrepresented your position over and over.  I lack reading comprehension...




    Wasn’t necessary. The posts themselves proved this.

  • Reply 295 of 301
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

    It’s not about winning. What on Earth gave you that impression?


     

    I was obviously mistaken.

     

    Quote:

    It’s about truth. In matters of objectivity, there is no debate.

     



     

    Of course, and you have provided the truth since the beginning.  Thank you.

     

    Quote:

    Wasn’t necessary. The posts themselves proved this.

     



     

    Yes, of course you are right.  All of the private messages I received convinced me that my attempts at logical fallacies, my lies, my misrepresentations, and my lack of reading comprehension were obvious to all.

     

    Again, I hope that this brings you some comfort.

  • Reply 296 of 301
    Originally Posted by Fred Maxwell View Post

    All of the private messages I received...


     

    Appeal to popularity. :rolleyes:

     

    If you ever have the inclination to be correct, PM me and we’ll discuss the actual topic again.

  • Reply 297 of 301
    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Fred Maxwell View Post


    All of the private messages I received convinced me that [things I thought were hidden] were obvious to all.


     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

    Appeal to popularity. :rolleyes:

     

    Perhaps you also consider this an appeal to popularity:  "All of the people saying "hello" as they walked by convinced me I was plainly visible to all." 

  • Reply 298 of 301

    Tallest Skil View Post

     

    I see that posts were deleted and 78 lines were deleted from one of yours that remains.  Just so your original words are not lost, I'm providing this.

     

     

    Originally Posted by Fred Maxwell View Post

    I was reading at a college level when I was tested in fifth grade. As an adult, I've been published in popular magazines and professional technical journals and served as a consultant to Fortune 500 publisher where I checked volumes in a book series for accuracy.


     

    Oh, hello, appeal to authority.

     
    I'm not the one with the reading comprehension issues.

     

    And yet you seem to either not be reading or not comprehending what you read here.

     

    Your inability to produce a quote supporting your claim of misrepresentation shows otherwise. 


     

    Did it already. Went through it with detail. Your unwillingness or inability to read posts before replying to them does not make them–or the statements within them–go away.

     
     I read what you wrote in reply and it failed completely as a refutation.  

     

    And if it had done so, you would have provided a disproof of the point.

     

    There are pages of refutations available here:  



     

    I do not see how this refutes either the results of the statements previously presented or the internal logic of the accompanying statements. Also, as I don’t know which of the previously presented information was assembled by the man to whom you’re applying a genetic fallacy, I can only say that I have multiple other sources of information presentable–which say the same thing–and thus undermine the claim that... wait, you never claimed that the information was wrong or showed such, did you? Only that it was wrong by proxy. Anyway, I have plenty of other sources that have nothing to do with your hate groups.

     

    You've proven yourself unable to even understand definitions


     

    At no point has this been proven.

     

    you're clearly not a "defining authority."


     

    Yes, that would be why I said I wasn’t.

     

    "It is important to note that the fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus."


     

    Oh, look at that. Pulling a line out of context and replying to it as though it supports/defeats your argument. Hmm... Why does that phrase sound familiar.

     

    Meanwhile, there are statements such as this:

     

    A says P about subject matter S.

    A should be trusted about subject matter S.

    Therefore, P is correct.

     

    Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

     

    ...access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong...

     

    ...an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source... ...say it is right.

     

    which you so readily ignore.

     

    What you claim to be "common knowledge" is not.


     


     

    It is when the concept is brought up with the purpose of its use in discussion and not just as a reference to what the definition thereof is.

     

    If you’re going to be using something, it’s expected that you actually know something about it. Someone who says, “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously,” would have an understanding of English grammar but not of the definitions of the words therein.

     
    Not a problem. Just distribute larger denomination coins and bills.

     

    Yeah, we’ll just have to differ there.

     

    ...no one will care.


     

    No one will care that their old currency is less than worthless and that they’ll have to perpetually exchange it for ever larger denominations? You’ll only reply that the speed of inflation makes such worries moot without regard to the concept itself.

     

    It's not your place to declare what the "underlying problem" is


     

    Of course not. I’m saying the disconnect from physical limitations on the production and scope of currency is the underlying problem because it is the underlying problem, not because it is my desire or opinion that it be so.

     
    ignoring arguments to the contrary.

     

    I have only ignored your arguments insofar as they would be irrelevant to the point being discussed. Income inequality is possibility within any economic foundation, and is not intrinsically related to any one system. As such, it is not the problem with any given system.

     

    Because the former is real and the latter is imaginary, based on some fantasy world in there are never recessions, shortages, price fluctuations on imported goods, demand for our exported goods, natural disasters, wars, or anything else that happens in the real world.



     

    So why did physically-backed currency work so well for the 13,000 years of human history in which it was used? And why has fiat universally failed in the same time?

     
    ...the less room the Federal Reserve has...

     

    Quite honestly, the less anything the Federal Reserve has, the better.

     


    By your own admission, stabilizing the inflation rate at 0% (presumably by the magic of unicorns) would not cause employers to increase pay to workers, leaving the workers no more able to meet their expenses than they are today.




     

    Right, because again, income inequality does not depend on the system being used.

     

    Why should I accept your links as being definitive when you rejected mine?



     

    I guess that depends on the definition of truth, doesn’t it? No consensus can be reached between people when one knows of the existence of objective truth and the other believes that everything is relative. It also depends on the definition of words. As I said earlier, if you believe that an appeal to authority only occurs when someone who is not an “actual authority” (a phrase which is predicated on the knowledge of the existence of objective truth) is quoted, then you believe that anything any actual authority has said is true.

     

    With knowledge of the existence of objective truth, an “actual authority” would be a person who repeats said truths. Anyone who does not repeat said truths would, then, not be an actual authority. If they are perceived to be an authority, do not state objective truth, and are quoted as being correct, that is an appeal to their authority, not to the content of their statements.

     
    Besides, citing those links is, by your own definition of the term, an appeal to authority.

     

    Not when the information presented thereon isn’t wrong, of course.

     

    So we must settle this by me claiming that you are wrong and you claiming that I am wrong until one of us dies from old age.


     

    Or you could read the links and comprehend what an appeal to authority is.

     

    I did not accuse you of misrepresenting my position and then refuse to provide a quote. So you just lied.



     

    Posts are right there. This isn’t even about you anymore; anyone can read them.

     

    No, it's not "funny," it's fact. 


     


     

    And yet it’s not, and it’s funny–humor derived from your inability or unwillingness to do the same.

     

    Of course it's easy, since almost 100% of the currencies in circulation today are fiat currencies!  


     


     

    You either refuse to read my posts or you refuse to comprehend them. Your statement of ease is incorrect, as has been shown.

     
    So my answer of "The Swiss Franc." answered your challenge.

     

    It did no such thing, as has been shown.

     



    It's not an ad-hominem because I did not do it to undermine, or cast doubt on, your argument.



     

    That’s exactly what you did. Where an understanding of English is definitionally crucial to the comprehension of a topic discussed therewith, an unsubstantiated claim that the understanding has failed undermines the comprehension skills of the person in question, and thus appeals to the idea that they lack the intelligence to comprehend such things at all, particularly when there is specifically no other language in which the topic is being discussed.

     

    I wrote it as I was answering an awkwardly constructed sentence leaving me less than certain that you had conveyed the meaning that you had intended


     

    So instead of the ad-hom, why not just ask for a qualifier or restatement? Because I’m not worthy of such “kindness”, I imagine.

  • Reply 299 of 301
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Besides, citing those links is, by your own definition of the term, an appeal to authority.

    Not when the information presented thereon isn’t wrong, of course.


     

    That is a great example of the level of immature bickering that you have been trying to pass off as debate.  When I post a link, it's an appeal to authority and when you do, it's not an appeal to authority because you decree that the information at your link "isn't wrong." 

     

    After conceding a handful of points early on left a bitter taste in your mouth, you decided that you would no longer be just a debate participant; you would also serve as the debate's sole moderator and judge.  Beyond that, you would be the self-appointed arbiter of which statements and sources were correct and which were not. Your answers, when you elected to provide them, became terse, petulant, and often amounted to little more than unsubstantiated declarations that you were right and/or that I was wrong.  When an honest answer would have revealed that you were wrong, you simply lied or ignored the question entirely.  When called out for lying, you just doubled down, repeating the lie over and over.  When debating the topic went poorly for you, you resorted to calling every piece of evidence an "appeal to authority" and every criticism of your behavior an "ad hominem."

     

    So I'm not going to waste more of my time, and more of Apple Insider's bandwidth and storage, playing your juvenile games. 

     

    Quote:

    Because I’m not worthy of such “kindness”, I imagine.



     

    I'm going to extend a kindness to you, in spite of the reprehensible way that you have behaved. Turn off your computer and get counseling. You're depressed, lonely, frustrated, and angry to the point of irrationality. Something has gone very wrong in your life and posting almost 39,000 messages on AppleInsider has not fixed it. Lashing out at countless strangers online has not provided you solace  This isn't the profile page of a mentally healthy adult man:

     

  • Reply 300 of 301
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



    {see above}

     

    Some or our posts were deleted, including some that violated no site rules.

     

    What is more disconcerting is that 78 lines were removed from your post above, without any indications of where text was deleted and who made the deletions.  The deletions made a substantial difference to the content and tone of your post.  I do not know if changes were made to earlier posts.

     

    In light of the substantial, silent, and anonymous alterations to individual messages, I am not comfortable posting more content here.

     

    Thank you for your time and effort.

Sign In or Register to comment.