|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: BretCahillBretCahill Date: Mar 2, 2008 12:15
Whenever a looneytarian or other disreputable rightard trys to dodge a
question by asking for definitions of all the terms in the question
it's easy to predict that they can dodge the issue indefinitely simply
by asking for definitions of any new terms you introduce in your
answers.
Ain't that clever?
Ain't that slicker 'n snot.
As it turns out, like all utterly specious dodges, it's too clever by
half.
I simply tell them to craft any definitions they think will get them
out of their immediate jam.
Then I wait for their next attempt to wiggle out.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
|
| | 49 Comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Mar 2, 2008 12:51
> Whenever a looneytarian or other disreputable rightard trys to dodge a
> question by asking for definitions of all the terms in the question
> it's easy to predict that they can dodge the issue indefinitely simply
> by asking for definitions of any new terms you introduce in your
> answers.
>
> Ain't that clever?
>
> Ain't that slicker 'n snot.
>
> As it turns out, like all utterly specious dodges, it's too clever by
> half.
>
> I simply tell them to craft any definitions they think will get them
> out of their immediate jam.
>
> Then I wait for their next attempt to wiggle out.
>
> Bret Cahill ...
|
| Show full article (1.02Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Patriot GamesPatriot Games Date: Mar 2, 2008 14:05
> Whenever a looneytarian or other disreputable rightard trys to dodge a
> question by asking for definitions of all the terms in the question
Your beloved ex-President, whom you dream of having oral sex with, invented
the requirement when he needed the definition for what "is" is.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: thinkerthinker Date: Mar 2, 2008 14:57
> Whenever a looneytarian or other disreputable rightard trys to dodge a
> question by asking for definitions of all the terms in the question
> it's easy to predict that they can dodge the issue indefinitely simply
> by asking for definitions of any new terms you introduce in your
> answers.
>
> Ain't that clever?
>
> Ain't that slicker 'n snot.
>
> As it turns out, like all utterly specious dodges, it's too clever by
> half.
>
> I simply tell them to craft any definitions they think will get them
> out of their immediate jam.
>
> Then I wait for their next attempt to wiggle out.
|
| Show full article (0.85Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Roy Jose LorrRoy Jose Lorr Date: Mar 2, 2008 15:07
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 12:15:01 -0800 (PST), BretCahill@ peoplepc.com
> wrote:
>
> >>Whenever a looneytarian or other disreputable rightard trys to dodge a
>>question by asking for definitions of all the...
|
| Show full article (1.13Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael PriceMichael Price Date: Mar 2, 2008 15:24
> Whenever a looneytarian or other disreputable rightard trys to dodge a
> question by asking for definitions of all the terms in the question
> it's easy to predict that they can dodge the issue indefinitely simply
> by asking for definitions of any new terms you introduce in your
> answers.
>
> Ain't that clever?
>
> Ain't that slicker 'n snot.
>
> As it turns out, like all utterly specious dodges, it's too clever by
> half.
>
> I simply tell them to craft any definitions they think will get them
> out of their immediate jam.
>
> Then I wait for their next attempt to wiggle out.
>
> Bret Cahill ...
|
| Show full article (1.20Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Baldin Lee PramerBaldin Lee Pramer Date: Mar 2, 2008 15:50
> Whenever a looneytarian or other disreputable rightard trys to dodge a
> question by asking for definitions of all the terms in the question
> it's easy to predict that they can dodge the issue indefinitely simply
> by asking for definitions of any new terms you introduce in your
> answers.
>
> Ain't that clever?
>
> Ain't that slicker 'n snot.
>
> As it turns out, like all utterly specious dodges, it's too clever by
> half.
>
> I simply tell them to craft any definitions they think will get them
> out of their immediate jam.
>
> Then I wait for their next attempt to wiggle out.
Do you support animals over people?
|
| Show full article (0.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Mar 2, 2008 17:55
> Whenever a looneytarian or other disreputable rightard trys to dodge a
> question by asking for definitions of all the terms in the question
> it's easy to predict that they can dodge the issue indefinitely simply
> by asking for definitions of any new terms you introduce in your
> answers.
>
> Ain't that clever?
>
> Ain't that slicker 'n snot.
>
> As it turns out, like all utterly specious dodges, it's too clever by
> half.
You should know - being the expert at specious dodges, this little
tirade of yours just being an example of it.
Should anyone wish to see Brat exercising his expertise at specious
dodging, I direct your attention to the thread "Purpose of Banks after
Wealth is Leveled".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/d96c483f010c1339
|
| Show full article (0.84Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Mar 2, 2008 20:04
>
> Whenever a looneytarian or other disreputable rightard trys to dodge a
> question by asking for definitions of all the terms in the question
> it's easy to predict that they can dodge the issue indefinitely simply
> by asking for definitions of any new terms you introduce in your
> answers.
>
"If every term of every definiens must itself be defined, where should
we stop?" the WikiTxt states below, and in some philosophy books this
is considered a fallacious way to debate. It is not just Libertarians
and Conservatives that could possibly do it, and actually they would
be likely to do it less since they want some foundation where
justification stops, some self-justified proposition, or an un-moved
mover proposition...
Limitations of definition
|
| Show full article (3.71Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
