You're totally right about that. What makes you wrong is when you make false assertions. We generally just remark on it. The remarks don't cause you to be wrong. Rather, your being wrong prompts us to remark on it.

I'm wrong sometimes too, so go get me, tiger.

You bring up an excellent point. When you call Washington's anti-democratic policies a "paradox," is it just nitpicking to say: No, I don't see a paradox? I don't think so. I think it is crucial. Because what "paradox" connotes is an apparent contradiction that nonetheless has some truth in it. I'm saying the contradiction is fatal! That's the opposite of what you're saying. It is not changing the subject. It is looking at what you've said! What are you talking about when you say there's an "actual statement [you] make," as opposed to the actual words you use? The words are the content-- unless youre positing some ethereal realm where the true meanings of your bullshit statements reside.

That's what I mean by "clusterfuck." These statements are too much of a mess to sort, much less rebut.

quote:

---

You also do not respond to the bulk of my argument.

---

See, MaKK, I am not seeing anywhere that the 'Iraw' comment was a joke. It may have started out as one, but in the end it was pretty much an attempt to steer people away from the meat of the matter. YOU never actually address anyone's responses completely, unlike boorite. He has, in fact, served your ignorant little ass TO YOU on a platter, with a complete set of utensils, a bib, a fabric napkin, and a goddamn BILL FOR THE SERVICE, and in the process, tried to rebut everything you have said. It is nearly impossible when you haven't presented a single fact or instance to buttress your rhetoric to rebut everything.

Bunner, I don't consider this feeding a troll at all. I consider this trying very, very hard to change the mind of a crucial individual. Every single person counts, and one as young as MaKK and as opinionated needs all the patience people can provide him with when they slam face-first into his pig-headedness. I am a very rare individual in that I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong, and when I am wrong about something, I will agree and admit, and move on in the right direction. Boorite, and I apologize for continuing to use you as an example, has already admitted that he is of a similar ilk.

MaKK, I wish you would just put aside your feelings of being wrong and understand that no one WANTS you to be wrong. At all. I am not happy you are wrong. I enjoy the thrill of the debate, but in the end, I and many others are extremely saddened by the fact that you don't care enough about your fellow man, most of which are worse off than you, and have not chosen this route, to perhaps come at these issues from an angle of making the world a better place. Not making the world a better place by force, though. In EVERY instance in history, force begets force begets force begets force, and has it ever made peace? Why would so many people here be trying to change your mind when none of us actually have a personal stake in anything that happens to you? I am now very, very sorry if I insulted you. It is probably not the best way to get you to see the true side of things, but I hope you understand that what you are saying has NEVER, EVER worked in any country, time, place, or frigging dimension. Ever. The world is still at war with itself in hundreds of different areas, and it is purely criminal to say that the fighting between Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda or even two of the tiniest warring factions has no effect or bearing on the rest of the world.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Clarification: Where you said you don't feel wrong? That's exactly what I predicted in the previous message. You don't know you got beat like a cheap pair of bongos. That's the mark of a person who is beat.

Which is kind of a paradox, don't you think?

---
What others say about boorite!

I'm going to continue this in DSMP because there's no point in having two of these threads.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Yes, there is.

(LOOL)

---
What others say about boorite!

Why not support Bush? This is why.

(Flash.)

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

Seeing isolated facts and quotes set to dramatic music always changes my mind.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I know I wasn't around for most of this, but I think Makk is getting pushed around a little too hard. I'd like to see some more dissections of his long posts by boorite and less arguing about arguing itself. I don't feel as though he's lost, and using your argument of "losers don't know they've lost" is kind of an annoying tactic, boorite. I guess I should go check out the other thread.

---
Sex Piano.

You mean like the national anthem?

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

*WARNING* Long-suppressed rant ahead.

I agree. This highlights the reason I stay out of FGH. It's something that bothers me with human interaction in general. Something that I feel like bringing up 10 times a day when I see it in conversation, but always avoid since it's tangential to any conversation. (Because it's the reference frame of the conversation itself, not the topic of the conversation.) But fuck it. Since this is FGH, and since Trippingbillee gave me a segway, and since it's 3am and it's either this or Three's Company, here it goes.

Everything that comes out of a human being's mouth is opinion. Everything. It's belief. It consists of probability. To say that "The remarks don't cause you to be wrong. Rather, your being wrong prompts us to remark on it." is really only saying, "It's my opinion that you're wrong." Even the infered absolutism in "your being wrong prompts us to remark on it" still only breaks down to opinion. To probability.

While I believe there is an absolute truth to things, that absolute truth can't come out of your mouth. What comes out of your mouth, by its very nature is opinion, and so governed by probability.

You can say "Oxygen has eight electrons! EIGHT! You hear me, ObiJo, you cum dump?! Oxygen has eight electrons!! ABSOLUTELY EIGHT!" and you're still only saying "It's my opinion oxygen has eight electrons". In reality, oxygen either does or doesn't have 8 electrons. Your opinion of whether it does doesn't change this one bit. Your opinion is still just opinion governed by the probability of the fact that symbology (here being language) is not reality.

So, really, it's asanine to try to impose absolute right and wrong in a conversation. Once you see the inherent probability of language, absolutes become probables. So statements like "You are absolutely wrong!" become "You are probably absolutely wrong!"

Silliness.

One opinion is as valid as another. Once you start assigning someone's opinion to the person himself instead of to some perceived "absolute" of the symbology the person is discussing, you can really start discussing the issue, since you've eliminated the emotional need to be "right", which arose originally from needing to "protect" your own inner symbology as if it was somehow in jeopardy from someone else's symbology being ingruent with it.

(Saying that probably just saved me $250 in therapy.)

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

*incongruent, not ingruent

*$500, not $250

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

quote:

---

One opinion is as valid as another. Once you start assigning someone's opinion to the person himself instead of to some perceived "absolute" of the symbology the person is discussing, you can really start discussing the issue, since you've eliminated the emotional need to be "right", which arose originally from needing to "protect" your own inner symbology as if it was somehow in jeopardy from someone else's symbology being incongruent with it.

---

It does seem, Obijo, that boorite's best response to my last argument has been that I am wrong because I am wrong.

I guess I really can't defend against that.

Also MikeyG I never really understood what your argument was other than making [incorrect] guesses about my personal life, and arguing about the nature of arguing.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Again, looking back at the thread, without rehashing each little point, I don't know what more I could do. The remark that Makk doesn't know he got massacred isn't meant as part of the argument, or as some tactic. It's just a remark. Probably a vain remark on my part-- judgemental and very annoying. I'll agree with that, and I apologize.

But you can't accuse me of not engaging the points, such as they were, because I did. And when I did, some folks, namely Makk and Nate, complained that the messages were too long and nitpicky. So what am I supposed to do? Dissect the post point by point? Did that. Make snarky remarks? Did that. Not argue? Did that too but wasn't happy with it.

Ah well. I'm a little tired. Please excuse my strident tone in previous messages. I get that way. But let's not confuse that with the real issue, which is the war, and our conduct in it.

---
What others say about boorite!

Hear, hear. MaaK, the point is that YOU need to provide some solid evidence of the things you believe are the reasons for the war. And I don't mean showing me a WMD. I mean provide some information to us showing what you mean. I shouldn't have to reiterate that Fox News and such don't count as scrupulous sources. Go to www.fair.org and see if you can find anything to support your reasons. I think an organization dedicated to anticensorship is pretty honest and willing to show the truth, don't you? If you can find me a nonpartisan source that would be a good thing.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

quote:

---

One opinion is as valid as another.

---

What is it you want me to prove? That Saddam invaded Kuwait? That Saddam had hatred for America? That I think our right to protect ourself is more important than the red tape of international bodies?

Tell me exactly what I said that I need to "prove" and I'll be happy to. I'm sorry if I don't share your penchant for posting unrelated and superfluous articles.

What happened to that big long response you said you were drafting in regards to my last big post? The post in which I was so wrong it is obvious to the stones and the grass?

Also, MikeyG, I've never cited anything from Fox News. I really don't know what you are talking about. Maybe they talk about the same things on Fox News, I don't know, I don't have cable. I'm sorry you can't believe that people come up with their own opinions instead of getting them dumped into their heads by the television.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

So what medium did you use to come up with your opinion on the Iraqi invasion MaKK?

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

A comprehensive understanding of history, current events, human nature and politics along with a BA in history?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

History? I'd like to hear your opinion on what history has to do with what's going over there right now?

Btw, you mentioned current events. Well, without TV, radio, newspapers, or the internet...how exactly do you keep up on current events? You've already shunned the internet in that other thread and television in this one. You more or less called them tools of propaganda.

Of course, it's only propaganda if you don't agree with it.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

God talks to him through Mrs. Gropner's weinner dog, Zippy.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

I didn't shun the Internet, I shunned highly suspect sources. You can show me an independent intelligence anaylsis on the Internet and I'll consider it given the nature of the organization doing the analysis. Or an AP Wire story. Or any number of relevant, verifiable sources. But not a story from www.strange-vague-stilted-half-truths.com Did you look at the sources I shunned?

Also I didn't shun television here, I said I didn't have cable. "More or less called them tools of propaganda". Sounds like you're putting words in my mouth. MikeyG was the one implying my words were FowNews echoes.

The every day person doesn't know anything about classified intelligence, so I'm going to look to certain places to try and draw an opinion on those matters.

Not every professor knows what's going on in Iraq. I'm going to look to other places to decide what is going on there.

Not every suburbanite knows what's going on in the inner city.

Not every good girl knows what's going on in the bad girl's bathroom.

I'm sorry for intelligently discriminating my sources, I know that must offend those who wallow, feast, and grow fat on their own self-reassuring stupidity.

Eat up, piggies.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

when im feeling blue, im always happy to come back here, where im hated, and realize that mAAk bEn is a bigger jerkwad than me.

*TANGENTIAL*

quote:

---

quote:

---

One opinion is as valid as another.

---

I disagree. If our opinions differ on something verifiable or falsifiable, like, say, civilian casualties in Iraq, we can work toward some degree of confidence in one figure or the other.

---

See, you still have yet to give an example of suspect or non-suspect sources. How is anyone supposed to believe anything you claim if you refuse to even provide ONE example of what you look at?

Once again, give me a source you've shunned. Hell, give me a source you've looked at. www.fair.org is a great place to link to, and once again, it is a non-partisan organization.

Hell, I'll say it. TELEVISION IS A TOOL OF PROPAGANDA. You shun television, and you shun the internet. So again, what sources do you use? Not what sources you DON'T use, Mr. History major. And just because you majored in history does NOT make you an expert on current affairs. Or history, actually.

??? Did you not already do that? Wait, wait...does this mean you've formed opinions on things without knowing about them, or looking up any information? Here's an idea: Fill out a Freedom of Information Act request form and go to your local government branch and request certain information. You CAN get some of this stuff from the government itself, you know. Hell, an organization that Wolfowitz and Cheney, among others, belong to said that a 'New Pearl Harbor is needed' to galvanize support for the country. I have to dig through my links to find it, but this is from THAT organization itself, not some editorial or article. When I find it, I'll post it.

quote:

---

Not every professor knows what's going on in Iraq. I'm going to look to other places to decide what is going on there.

Not every suburbanite knows what's going on in the inner city.

Not every good girl knows what's going on in the bad girl's bathroom.

---