Liberals politicizing tragedies for political gain

[AbsolutNickUSN]

Tell ya what--go get a Sea Service ribbon, THEN you can tell us what it's all about.

For the record, I had five.

Got one.

[AbsolutNickUSN]

Be aware - I agreed with you on your logic. But focusing on semantics rather than the actual topic also makes you a petty bitch.

Fair enough

[AbsolutNickUSN]

And this is where you are completely incorrect.

BTW - since you called it, please PROVE that "everyone is naturally inclined...."

Play by your own rules, please.

Simply a matter of basic human instinct.

From when we are born our basic instinct is exert some measure of control/influence over our environment and by extention the people in that environment to satisfy our basic needs and wants.

We're taught that we can't always have it our way but none the less the instinct remains.


Now as we grow older that instinct influences or has the capacity to influence the attitudes and sentiments we develope over time.  A baisc human want is a measure of conformity to one's own ideal environment, and again a basic human instinct is to exert control over one's own environment.  So at some level there is an underlying instinct to control the people around us to satisfy our want of conformity.

[bkg]

Simply a matter of basic human instinct.

From when we are born our basic instinct is exert some measure of control/influence over our environment and by extention the people in that environment to satisfy our basic needs and wants.

We're taught that we can't always have it our way but none the less the instinct remains.


Now as we grow older that instinct influences or has the capacity to influence the attitudes and sentiments we develope over time.  A baisc human want is a measure of conformity to one's own ideal environment, and again a basic human instinct is to exert control over one's own environment.  So at some level there is an underlying instinct to control the people around us to satisfy our want of conformity.

Nice opinion. You haven't proven your statement. You said EVERYONE. Better start proving that - 7 Billion people in the world. You're going to be busy.

Either back up your shit, or stop playing pathetic symantical games.

[Duke Nukum]

Confusion is neither an ideology nor is it a philosophy.

A lot of people are confused.  Ain't nothing special about any of them.  Even if they are adept at masking their own confusion via a web of vague semantics and capricious, ever-shifting rules of debate.  Anyone can impress their own self.

[Oceander]

Nice opinion. You haven't proven your statement. You said EVERYONE. Better start proving that - 7 Billion people in the world. You're going to be busy.

Either back up your shit, or stop playing pathetic symantical games.

Ok, let's be a little more nuanced in what counts as a logical argument, hmmm.  I am not saying, for the time being, that Absolut's argument satisfies the criterion for an indirect proof, but if inductive reasoning is good enough for proving statements regarding the natural numbers (or some infinite subset thereof) then they ought, in principle, to be good enough for indirectly proving statements regarding a mere 7 billion or so human beings, no?

[AbsolutNickUSN]

Nice opinion. You haven't proven your statement. You said EVERYONE. Better start proving that - 7 Billion people in the world. You're going to be busy.

Either back up your shit, or stop playing pathetic symantical games.

That isn't a semantical game, pathetic or otherwise.

That's hypothesis backed by observation supported by facts regarding basic human social psychology.


And until now one I thought that was more widely known and accepted.


Now if you have evidence to disprove the aforementioned hypothesis, I'm ready to open minedly hear your position.

[bkg]

That isn't a semantical game, pathetic or otherwise.

That's hypothesis backed by observation supported by facts regarding basic human social psychology.


And until now one I thought that was more widely known and accepted.


Now if you have evidence to disprove the aforementioned hypothesis, I'm ready to open minedly hear your position.

I don't need to disprove your hypothesis - you need to prove it.

If you're going to call people out for using the word "ALL," then you better be prepared to backup usage of the word "EVERYONE." Either play by the rules you ask others to, or don't play at all, okay? I supported you earlier, now I'm holding you to the same accountability. Can't have it both ways, dude.

[bkg]

Ok, let's be a little more nuanced in what counts as a logical argument, hmmm.  I am not saying, for the time being, that Absolut's argument satisfies the criterion for an indirect proof, but if inductive reasoning is good enough for proving statements regarding the natural numbers (or some infinite subset thereof) then they ought, in principle, to be good enough for indirectly proving statements regarding a mere 7 billion or so human beings, no?

Completely agree with you. But he wanted to play semantical games, so I assumed he was willing to play by his own rules, so I called him on it. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Everyone is naturally inclined to want to control other people...

This is ironic as the genesis of this thread came from his taking umbrage with my declaration that ALL liberals exploit tragedy for political gain.

[bkg]

This is ironic as the genesis of this thread came from his taking umbrage with my declaration that ALL liberals exploit tragedy for political gain.

hence my challenge.

[Oceander]

That isn't a semantical game, pathetic or otherwise.

That's hypothesis backed by observation supported by facts regarding basic human social psychology.


And until now one I thought that was more widely known and accepted.


Now if you have evidence to disprove the aforementioned hypothesis, I'm ready to open minedly hear your position.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.  Since you are championing the proposition in dispute, it falls to you to prove its truth; one does not get to allege controversial statements as fact, and then sit around on one's laurels and wait for one's opponents to disprove one's unproven allegations.

[AbsolutNickUSN]

I don't need to disprove your hypothesis - you need to prove it.

I don't see why not, regarding the generalization I challenged earlier I submitted evidence disproving it.

But anyway regarding my observation I suppose, we'll have to agree to disagree as I've presented the most compelling evidence to support it.

If you're going to call people out for using the word "ALL," then you better be prepared to backup usage of the word "EVERYONE."

I have no problem with that at all.

Either play by the rules you ask others to, or don't play at all, okay? I supported you earlier, now I'm holding you to the same accountability. Can't have it both ways, dude.

Beg pardon but what gave you the impression I wanted it both ways?  I wasn't opposing the use of "ALL,"  "EVERYONE," or the like in any observation just challenging a specific instance I demonstrated to be ill founded.



Course I would think it would go without saying that there is a fundamental difference between a politically motivated generalization intended to disparage and a politically neutral hypothesis on human social psychology.

[Duke Nukum]

You know, a thief tends to view everyone else as a thief, thus justifying himself.  "Everybody does it" is the rallying cry of the Statist, thus justifying their peccadilloes and foibles.  And so are our true selves revealed in how we view "everyone."

[TheSarge]

You know, a thief tends to view everyone else as a thief, thus justifying himself.  "Everybody does it" is the rallying cry of the Statist, thus justifying their peccadilloes and foibles.  And so are our true selves revealed in how we view "everyone."

It's also a cop out knee jerk defense when you can't argue the facts.

[Duke Nukum]

It's also a cop out knee jerk defense when you can't argue the facts.

Honestly, I don't think the guy is all that worth it.  As soon as I saw the "I'm a liberal conservative" or whatever, I knew he was either very young and confused or simply very, very confused and not improving with age.

It might even be worth it to tell him, "okay, you win." so he can go skipping away back to his liberal board bragging about his argumentative adequacy against we troglodyte cavians.

I've never met anyone at any time who reminded me more of the Monty Python argument skit.

[AbsolutNickUSN]

You know, a thief tends to view everyone else as a thief, thus justifying himself.  "Everybody does it" is the rallying cry of the Statist, thus justifying their peccadilloes and foibles.  And so are our true selves revealed in how we view "everyone."

Fascinating observation.   

Honestly, I don't think the guy is all that worth it.

Obviously worth it enough for you to share.  hmmmmmm

[Thor]

It might even be worth it to tell him, "okay, you win." so he can go skipping away back to his liberal board bragging about his argumentative adequacy against we troglodyte cavians.

I'm not quite sure, but I don't believe that Nick belongs to any "Liberal" board. I DO know that he belongs to USMILNET and here. What I DO know of him, he's not that into forums and bringing him here was an effort in itself.

You know, we SAY that we have an "open" forum, but Lord forbid that anybody that thinks outside the group comes here. While I DO disdain some factions, like the Ron Paul robots, I'd like to consider myself open minded.

[Splashdown]

I'm not quite sure, but I don't believe that Nick belongs to any "Liberal" board. I DO know that he belongs to USMILNET and here. What I DO know of him, he's not that into forums and bringing him here was an effort in itself.

You know, we SAY that we have an "open" forum, but Lord forbid that anybody that thinks outside the group comes here. While I DO disdain some factions, like the Ron Paul robots, I'd like to consider myself open minded.

That's great and everything, but he hasn't actually said anything yet. It would be nice if he did something other than play with semantics.

Just sayin'.

[Duke Nukum]

I'm not quite sure, but I don't believe that Nick belongs to any "Liberal" board. I DO know that he belongs to USMILNET and here. What I DO know of him, he's not that into forums and bringing him here was an effort in itself.

You know, we SAY that we have an "open" forum, but Lord forbid that anybody that thinks outside the group comes here. While I DO disdain some factions, like the Ron Paul robots, I'd like to consider myself open minded.

Maybe he's not that much into forums because he's not that good at being on them?  And that's fine.  Everybody has different strengths. 

If I needed someone to bore somebody to death by hair splitting, Nick would be the first person I called on.

[AbsolutNickUSN]

I'm not quite sure, but I don't believe that Nick belongs to any "Liberal" board. I DO know that he belongs to USMILNET and here. What I DO know of him, he's not that into forums and bringing him here was an effort in itself.

For those concerned these are the forums I belong to:


USMILNET (as mentioned above)*
Military.com
US Milvets*
Democratic Underground
Maryland Shooters*


*Indicates I have posted within the past few months.

[NHSparky]

For those concerned these are the forums I belong to:


USMILNET (as mentioned above)*
Military.com
US Milvets*
Democratic Underground
Maryland Shooters*


*Indicates I have posted within the past few months.

Why does this not surprise me?

[AbsolutNickUSN]

That's great and everything, but he hasn't actually said anything yet. It would be nice if he did something other than play with semantics.

Just sayin'.

I've said something, but it is obvious that it has fallen on a few deaf ears.

[AbsolutNickUSN]

Why does this not surprise me?

Because you're allowing your preconceptions to do the thinking for you?

[NHSparky]

Because you're allowing your preconceptions to do the thinking for you?

Or perhaps your own words betray your position?