Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Us government's trick to violate civil liberties
View Single Post
Old 12-17-2011, 03:12 PM   #40
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
Everything I said still applies, even with the misspoken words on your end. No one intelligent is going to take conspiracy theories here seriously because of the inherent lack of evidence most conspiracy theories consist of. Even less will take it seriously if the person posting the theory actually goes out of his way to justify the lack of evidence on his end using this sections of the forums description. "Uh, okay. Then I'm not compelled to take this conspiracy theory seriously. Good day." is about all you could hope for unless you want to shoot the shit with fucking HR. In which case you're only going to learn how much of a dumbass HR is. Again, not really the best course of action one should take if he's all about learning. Debating in the debate section is still the best place here to have intelligent discussions. Besides OH, of course.
I only posted it because I thought someone might find it interesting.
I have already looked into it as much as I was willing, and found it not to my taste since I couldn't get it to work. That doesn't mean that someone else may not have been able to.
When anyone other than numinous requested evidence I pointed out citations (sloppy citations I will admit) , or gave a link. I simply didn't want to discuss it with him since he never even approached it as though he wanted to have a real discussion about it, he only wanted to disprove it.

And still, much of the stuff you're posting in this thread contradicts the thirst for knowledge thing you're going on about. For example:

That's a shame, since it's actually a pretty good video. But who cares about well presented videos that illustrate very common pitfalls in obtaining greater understandings, evil mean guy Num posted it so let's not watch it out of spite! Quite scholarly of you, good sir.
This is kind of my problem with him, he doesn't respect my clarifications of my definitions, but he expects me to accept his at face value. I am no longer willing to make allowances for him, since he has never shown any inclination to do the same.
I can't consider it an intelligent discussion when it doesn't take into account the definition of the statement in question.

And I'm still not sure what you're talking about when you say Num is wrong and too much of a jerkface to admit it. What was he wrong about, again?
Well it basically all comes down to his insistence that saying you can't say that for sure is the same thing as saying the opposite is true. I have stated that I did not mean that when I said it. If this was a good theoretical discussion, it would be focused on the possibilities that statement brings about after some clarification of the initial statement. Instead we end up getting bogged down in semantics to the point where it's more like a lawyer trying a case.

To think that you have a valid argument against someone when you refuse to acknowledge their actual starting point is ludicrous in my opinion.

Last edited by almightywood; 12-17-2011 at 03:19 PM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to almightywood For This Useful Post:
matta (01-23-2012)