YouTube censorship

[ok doser]

IOW, no, you're not interested in discussing the OP


i believe that's called thread derailment, artie

something that the mods here enjoy censoring (see what I did there? )


now toddle off and go pass out somewhere :wave2:

 

[Town Heretic]

If you don't respect the fact that she said what she said, you're in no position to tell her that she is evil.

All you need to rebut someone is logic, which has particular form, and language, which has particular meaning. If they're missing one or using neither then you're really speaking to the gallery, because a person who insists on redefining a concept to suit themself and can't reason their way through an actual argument is never going to see anything more than their shadow or throw more than that at you. Trying to accommodate irrationality, legitimizing a distorted approach, doesn't do the other person any real favor.

I've explained this to you before, but you refuse to show any respect.

You've said that before. It wasn't an argument then either. It's a position I've rejected for reasons given prior and to some extent above.

To respect an opinion is not to agree with it or endorse it; it is simply to accept that the words you have heard mean what they plainly say. Unless you've got good reason to claim otherwise.

Actual and appropriate usage is an excellent reason, as is clarity and a greater chance that anyone looking on and reading will understand the points and counter.

I claim to be a fundamentalist and a right winger and I do not call myself a conservative.

It's only problematic if you say you are those first two things but you are not the latter. Not saying something won't confuse anyone on the point. But every time you make the claim of being the first two and reject the latter most of the people you speak it to will scratch their heads and wonder what in the world you're talking about. You bring each of the words out of focus, since at that point no one can reasonably know what you mean about any of them.

When I use these labels, you have to respect what I am saying, not insist that your definitions hold sway.

Except they aren't "my" definitions. Only one of us is muddying the waters of communication by attempting to use a word with an understood meaning contrary to the convention.

You could argue that my usage is incorrect,

More note than argue, as a prima facie case is made by definition.

and that would further your agenda of steering this conversation as far as possible away from OP

That's a hypocritical assertion. And by that I mean precisely what anyone will understand if they know what each of those words actually mean, i.e., they possess a good dictionary and the ability to read and grasp its terms. You're spending a good bit of time and the entirety of this post trying to legitimize your approach to conversation and argument. That's off topic and only your approach moved you to it.

, but I'm not likely to shift, unless you can show something profound that I've missed.

You mean other than an approach to language, the means to communicate what you mean by "show" and "missed". lain:

Otherwise, what we have is more of you engaging in the fallacy of equivocation.

Which didn't actually happen, which is why you use the phrase without sustaining it through argument and the application of reason in parts and illustration.

To the gallery, the fallacy of equivocation occurs when a someone uses a word or phrase in a way that produces ambiguity instead of understanding by the use of one word in a way that is inconsistent within a thought/approach/and application.

Here's a funny illustration of the actual fallacy in play: A warm beer is better than a cold beer. After all, nothing is better than a cold beer, and a warm beer is better than nothing.

 

[Nihilo]

. . . To the gallery, the fallacy of equivocation occurs when a someone uses a word or phrase in a way that produces ambiguity instead of understanding by the use of one word in a way that is inconsistent within a thought/approach/and application.

All that's required for this fallacy is using one homonym in one part of your argument, and then using another homonym in another.

Here's a funny illustration of the actual fallacy in play: A warm beer is better than a cold beer. After all, nothing is better than a cold beer, and a warm beer is better than nothing.

Right, because "nothing" means one thing in "Nothing is better than a cold beer," which means, if you have a choice, you'd choose a cold beer over everything else; and it means another in "A warm beer is better than nothing," meaning that if you're forced to choose between a warm beer and no beer at all, choose the warm beer.

Nothing is a homonym; and they're everywhere.

 

[Arthur Brain]

IOW, no, you're not interested in discussing the OP


i believe that's called thread derailment, artie

something that the mods here enjoy censoring (see what I did there? )


now toddle off and go pass out somewhere :wave2:

And you're on topic of course...



Now how about, instead of projecting your own habits onto me and starting dumb threads and trolling all over the place you grow up and act like a guy who's behaviour edifies the faith he claims to have?

Where it comes to YT they pull all sorts of things nowadays that used to be allowed, often over breaches of copyright more than anything.

 

[Town Heretic]

All that's required for this fallacy is using one homonym in one part of your argument, and then using another homonym in another.

That's probably a clearer way of putting it. You had to like the illustration though.

Right, because "nothing" means one thing in "Nothing is better than a cold beer," which means, if you have a choice, you'd choose a cold beer over everything else; and it means another in "A warm beer is better than nothing," meaning that if you're forced to choose between a warm beer and no beer at all, choose the warm beer.

Nothing is a homonym; and they're everywhere.

 

[Nihilo]

That's probably a clearer way of putting it. You had to like the illustration though.

:chuckle: Definitely. And for the record, I would choose a warm beer over nothing.

 

[ok doser]

All you need to rebut someone is logic

:doh:

:nono:

...the fallacy of equivocation occurs when a someone uses a word or phrase in a way that produces ambiguity instead of understanding by the use of one word in a way that is inconsistent within a thought/approach/and application.

Here's eleven illustrations of the actual fallacy in play: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Town-Heretic&p=4983848&viewfull=1#post4983848

Nothing is a homonym; and they're everywhere.

you could probably hire someone to come in and spray something

 

[Town Heretic]

Here's eleven illustrations of the actual fallacy in play: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Town-Heretic&p=4983848&viewfull=1#post4983848

From the Department of Philosophy at Texas State:

"The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.

Example 5. A warm beer is better than a cold beer. After all, nothing is better than a cold beer, and a warm beer is better than nothing.

What rhymes with "Sucking lemons" anyway? So thanks but no thanks.

 

[Stripe]

All you need to rebut someone is logic.

Which shows that you are ignorant of the nature of logic.

A person who insists on redefining a concept to suit themself and can't reason their way through an actual argument is never going to see anything more than their shadow or throw more than that at you. Trying to accommodate irrationality, legitimizing a distorted approach, doesn't do the other person any real favor.

It's just a word.

"Respect."

You have no idea what it means and are utterly unwilling to show any grace.

You've said that before. It wasn't an argument then either. It's a position I've rejected for reasons given prior and to some extent above.

Nobody can remember, and you addressed nothing of what I said.

Actual and appropriate usage is an excellent reason, as is clarity and a greater chance that anyone looking on and reading will understand the points and counter.

There is little to be confused about. You think conservatives are necessarily right wingers. Words mean things. It has been explained that we right wingers can logically and justifiably reject the "conservative" label.

You don't want to concede the ground upon which you can conflate the two groups so are just disagreeing with everything.

It's only problematic if you say you are those first two things but you are not the latter. Not saying something won't confuse anyone on the point. But every time you make the claim of being the first two and reject the latter most of the people you speak it to will scratch their heads and wonder what in the world you're talking about. You bring each of the words out of focus, since at that point no one can reasonably know what you mean about any of them.

Or you could just have the conversation. :idunno:

Except they aren't "my" definitions.

That's nice.

Only one of us is muddying the waters of communication by attempting to use a word with an understood meaning contrary to the convention.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Stripe]

That's a hypocritical assertion.

Nope. OP is a video about YouTube's potentially fraudulent behavior.

It's a fantastic discussion opportunity.

You've done everything but engage with it sensibly.

And by that I mean precisely what anyone will understand if they know what each of those words actually mean, i.e., they possess a good dictionary and the ability to read and grasp its terms.



Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Stripe]

You mean other than an approach to language, the means to communicate what you mean by "show" and "missed".

Nope.

But feel free to keep pushing your agenda and ignoring the discussion.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Stripe]

You mean other than an approach to language, the means to communicate what you mean by "show" and "missed".

No. I mean you have to provide something compelling that might convince me to believe that "right winger" and "conservative" must always mean exactly the same thing.

Which didn't actually happen.

Of course it did. You think "right winger" is necessarily the same thing as "conservative."

Which is why I used the phrase "fallacy of equivocation" and sustained it through argument and the application of reason in parts and illustration.

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a someone uses a word or phrase in a way that produces ambiguity instead of understanding by the use of one word in a way that is inconsistent within a thought/approach/and application.

Here's an illustration of the fallacy in play: A right winger is the same thing as a conservative.

To the gallery.

:rotfl:

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope. OP is a video about YouTube's potentially fraudulent behavior.

And you spent more than a post talking about something else while decrying the very thing you were doing. A thing you did voluntarily. That's a bit funny and entirely hypocritical.

You've done everything but engage with it sensibly.

Then go find someone you think is doing the thing you really want to be engaged in. How hard would that be?

And by that I mean precisely what anyone will understand if they know what each of those words actually mean, i.e., they possess a good dictionary and the ability to read and grasp its terms.

This parroting me without demonstrating more is a bit goofy. I suppose that means you'll use this next instead of your noggin.

No. I mean you have to provide something compelling that might convince me to believe that "right winger" and "conservative" must always mean exactly the same thing.

I don't sell dictionaries. I only reference them. The point of language is communication. I've set out the problem with leaving the meaning reservation. Either that compels you or it doesn't. If it doesn't, well, banana the iron patch and there you swam.

Of course it did. You think "right winger" is necessarily the same thing as "conservative."

More of a venn diagram

Which is why I used the phrase "fallacy of equivocation" and sustained it through argument and the application of reason in parts and illustration.

Now you're just being delusional. You made a declaration without anything behind it but your will. I've noted that habit of yours before.

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a someone uses a word or phrase in a way that produces ambiguity instead of understanding by the use of one word in a way that is inconsistent within a thought/approach/and application.

Here's an illustration of the fallacy in play: A right winger is the same thing as a conservative.

So that's why you only declared it. You don't really have your hands around it.

Which shows that you are ignorant of the nature of logic.

Posh and piddle.

It's just a word. "Respect." You have no idea what it means and are utterly unwilling to show any grace.

Is there an end to your hypocrisy, Dariwn, or is it that you simply lack the ability to examine your methodology?

Nobody can remember, and you addressed nothing of what I said.

Both of those being, objectively, demonstrably false propositions.

It has been explained that we right wingers can logically and justifiably reject the "conservative" label.

Here's the argument you should have mounted and missed in this, whatever this is: TH, you said that all conservatives aren't right wingers but all right wingers are conservatives. If you recognize that they aren't completely the same thing why do you have a problem with my rejecting one of them as an apt description of my position?

That would at least put some meat on the bone. And if you were as interested in thinking your way through a conversation on the point as you are in telling me how horrible and disrespectful I'm being to you that's what you might have tried. I'd have an answer, but at least the conversation would have been meaningful instead of this, the thing I'm about to wash hands of and move along, again.

You don't want to concede the ground upon which you can conflate the two groups so are just disagreeing with everything.

See, to you that's what this is about. And that's the second reason I lost interest.

 

[Stripe]

And you spent more than a post talking about something else while decrying the very thing you were doing. A thing you did voluntarily. That's a bit funny and entirely hypocritical.

Nope.

I've spent my time trying to get the conversation on track. You've actively opposed the subject of OP.

Then go find someone you think is doing the thing you really want to be engaged in. How hard would that be?

:AMR:

This parroting me without demonstrating more is a bit goofy.

Gee, I wonder where that came from.

I don't sell dictionaries. I only reference them.

That's nice.

The point of language is communication.

Yep.

I've set out the problem with leaving the meaning reservation.

English, dude. English.

Either that compels you or it doesn't.

Or there's more to a conversation than insisting that your narrative holds sway.

More of a venn diagram.

Oh. So you don't think "right winger" and "conservative" are synonymous now?

Now you're just being delusional. You made a declaration without anything behind it but your will.

Nope.

I explained clearly the vast difference between a right winger and a conservative.

I've noted this habit of yours before.

Posh and piddle.

Nope. There are plenty of situations where you need far more than just logic to rebut an idea.

Is there an end to your hypocrisy?

Yes.

Respect involves reading what the other guy writes and accepting that it means what it plainly says. If you want to insist that he has to mean something else by what he says, you have to show compelling reasons.

You don't even try. You just declare that your way is the only way.

Both of those being, objectively, demonstrably false propositions.

That's nice.

Here's the argument you should have mounted and missed in this, whatever this is: TH, you said that all conservatives aren't right wingers but all right wingers are conservatives. If you recognize that they aren't completely the same thing why do you have a problem with my rejecting one of them as an apt description of my position?

Or you could just deal with what you've got. :up:

I'm about to wash hands of and move along, again.

Bye. Again. :wave2:

See, to you that's what this is about. And that's the second reason I lost interest.

Nope. This thread is about OP.

 

[Town Heretic]

I've spent my time trying to get eh conversation on track.

Noting there's an OP with another topic in route to not addressing it isn't really doing that.

Gee, I wonder where that came from.

Parroting me? Sod beat you to it.

English, dude. English.

Nothing wrong with the sentence.

"I've set out the problem with leaving the meaning reservation."

I suppose it would have been easier for you if I'd used the personal pronoun inferred: I've set out the problem with [your] leaving the meaning reservation.

Leaving the reservation is typically used (in the states) when someone goes far afield. Another way of saying it is that someone has gone off the reservation. The application here is that once you begin reserving the right to alter what words mean no one can really know what you mean by what you say without a tiresome and ongoing sidebar, assuming they can put faith in the meaning of the terms used in the sidebar.

That's why dictionaries matter.

Oh. So you don't think "right winger" and "conservative" are synonymous now?

lain:

Nope. There are plenty of situations where you need far more than just logic to rebut an idea.

You may well require hand puppets or a PowerPoint. All I need, assuming that I'm having a conversation with someone rational, is logic and language.

Respect involves reading what the other guy writes and accepting that it means what it plainly says.

Plainly says is the problem. If he alters the meaning of the word there's nothing like that happening.

If you want to insist that he has to mean something else by what he says, you have to show compelling reasons.

Rather, if someone insists on altering the meaning of a word then they are obligated to justify the alteration, which is a hard sell given the confusion it invites absent repeatedly reframing the point every time it's used thereafter, unless the person doesn't care if anyone else is confused by subsequent usage without the explanation.

 

[ok doser]

... this, the thing I'm about to wash hands of and move along, again.

:darwinsm:

 

[Town Heretic]

:darwinsm:

Maybe a little, but I reserve the right to change my mind to irk you last word/obsessive compulsive types and the odd parrot from time to time.

 

[Stripe]

All I need ... is logic and language.

Oh.

So you need more than just logic now?

Interesting. :think:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Nick M]

 

[Nick M]

Bill Clinton was not impeached over adultery. The leftists spokesmen for CNN and the others are factually incorrect multiple times just in this segment. He was charged for preparing false documents and lying under oath about being a rapist, which he is.