This is us, and it's everybody else too...

[Midnight Marauder]

What a punk you are, Marauder.


Whiny negger.


This thread fell apart a long time ago.

You're all butthurt now?

The thread "fell apart" when I utterly destroyed its premise. That doesn't stop others from voicing their opinion of the OP though, instead of just trolling.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whew, this thread has really moved since my last post, and I agree it has pretty well fallen apart. I didn't read all the tit for tat stuff so if somebody did respond to anything I said, please forgive me for missing it in all the noise.

What was the subject again?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

What was the subject again?

The subject was the idiotic premise that we all won't accept facts over our own opinions because we are irrational. All of us, without any exceptions. As the thread title and the article pasted into the OP indicate:

This is us, and it's everybody else too...

My contention is, it's NOT everybody. Not even close.

 

[veritas]

You have now proven the premise of the OP.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You have now proven the premise of the OP.

So you say.

You believe we are ALL irrational and won't accept facts over our own opinions when our opinion is proven wrong? ALL of us?

If so, you're really a idiot.

 

[veritas]

"ALL" wasn't the word they used. You made that up.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

"ALL" wasn't the word they used. You made that up.

ALL is understood in the title, is it not?

"This is us, and it's everybody else too...

Is it not implied? Of course it is. To deny so is dishonest.

 

[DiveCon]

"ALL" wasn't the word they used. You made that up.

ALL is understood in the title, is it not?

"This is us, and it's everybody else too...

Is it not implied? Of course it is. To deny so is dishonest.

when you says its "US AND EVERYBODY ELSE" that IS all

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

"Why Fact Can't Compete With Belief"

...

That explains the Obamabots and Bushbots. Thankfully, the Bushbots are no longer a concern. Unfortunately, the Obamabots are a HUGE problem and they have the power to do whatever they want.

Obama won with a convincing majority. "They" are the majority. The debate was last year. The will of americans has spoken. Get over it. The only HUG problem are those that don't believe in the democratic proccss.

Huggy I am going to hold you to the fact that you believe 53% to be a convincing majority.....just remember 54% of america is against a public option, also a convincing majority according to your opinion. Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports™

And xisted was Dead on accurate with his statement.

 

[MaggieMae]

^ si Modo, admiring her basset self in mirror..........

And yet? You won't answer a simple question:

Is what the article in the OP says really us, and everyone else too?

Of course it isn't. Let's be honest.

You are right it isn't. But it does describe a lot of the people who post here, maybe 50% or more.

BTW I like your avatar, it reflects your passion for music.

Thank you...of course it reflects the attitude here. That's what I meant by "us" in the title and "everybody else" suddenly became the operative word that was challenged. The comments in this entire thread are proof positive of the veracity of the study.

What's surprising is how truly upset and angry AT ME some people became over a simple theory, as if I posted it for some evil underlying purpose. I just thought it was interesting is all. C'est la vie...

 

[MaggieMae]

"ALL" wasn't the word they used. You made that up.

ALL is understood in the title, is it not?

"This is us, and it's everybody else too...

Is it not implied? Of course it is. To deny so is dishonest.

when you says its "US AND EVERYBODY ELSE" that IS all

Would it have been better if I had said "ME AND EVERYBODY ELSE"?? Once again, "US" referred to USMB posters, and "EVERYBODY ELSE" was meant to imply all the other people across the country engaging in the same type of conflict we (us) do here. Why is that so damned difficult to understand? I cannot believe that people have read into the title some sort of subliminal message. Paranoid much?

 

[DiveCon]

ALL is understood in the title, is it not?

"This is us, and it's everybody else too...

Is it not implied? Of course it is. To deny so is dishonest.

when you says its "US AND EVERYBODY ELSE" that IS all

Would it have been better if I had said "ME AND EVERYBODY ELSE"?? Once again, "US" referred to USMB posters, and "EVERYBODY ELSE" was meant to imply all the other people across the country engaging in the same type of conflict we (us) do here. Why is that so damned difficult to understand? I cannot believe that people have read into the title some sort of subliminal message. Paranoid much?

again, that means EVERYONE

who is excluded when you say "everyone"?

and it wasnt "subliminal"
it flat out said it

 

[MaggieMae]

when you says its "US AND EVERYBODY ELSE" that IS all

Would it have been better if I had said "ME AND EVERYBODY ELSE"?? Once again, "US" referred to USMB posters, and "EVERYBODY ELSE" was meant to imply all the other people across the country engaging in the same type of conflict we (us) do here. Why is that so damned difficult to understand? I cannot believe that people have read into the title some sort of subliminal message. Paranoid much?

again, that means EVERYONE

who is excluded when you say "everyone"?

and it wasnt "subliminal"
it flat out said it

Oh gawd, I give up. It's like trying to explain fractions to the fractured.

 

[Foxfyre]

What's surprising is how truly upset and angry AT ME some people became over a simple theory, as if I posted it for some evil underlying purpose. I just thought it was interesting is all. C'est la vie...

I think most who know you and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat might cut you some slack by recognizing that there will usually be exceptions to most statements of fact.

I think most who don't know you or the author of the piece and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat would do the same. Or they might add their own observation that there would be exceptions of course, but the rule is generally a good one or not.

And some will assume that they are being dissed by the theory being presented at all, and they will attack the messenger be it you or the author of the piece.

Right or wrong or something in between, the author at least obviously struck some chords, hit some nerves, or simply peaked some interest among the group.

 

[Si modo]

What's surprising is how truly upset and angry AT ME some people became over a simple theory, as if I posted it for some evil underlying purpose. I just thought it was interesting is all. C'est la vie...

I think most who know you and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat might cut you some slack by recognizing that there will usually be exceptions to most statements of fact.

I think most who don't know you or the author of the piece and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat would do the same. Or they might add their own observation that there would be exceptions of course, but the rule is generally a good one or not.

And some will assume that they are being dissed by the theory being presented at all, and they will attack the messenger be it you or the author of the piece.

Right or wrong or something in between, the author at least obviously struck some chords, hit some nerves, or simply peaked some interest among the group.

Frankly, I dismissed the non-linked, non-referenced, and likely fabricated 'article' from the moment I saw it as nonsense as I usually do with such sweeping generalizations. What almost always piques my interest is lameness in logic. This thread is full of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Right or wrong or something in between, the author at least obviously struck some chords, hit some nerves, or simply peaked some interest among the group.

Frankly, I dismissed the non-linked, non-referenced, and likely fabricated 'article' from the moment I saw it as nonsense as I usually do with such sweeping generalizations. What almost always piques my interest is lameness in logic. This thread is full of it.

But why? An idea is an idea, good or bad, no matter who thought it up or posted it. If it is a subject that doesn't interest you or strikes you as nonsense, why post in the thread at all? How detailed does a concept have to be in order to not be deemed a 'sweeping generalization'?

I seriously am not intending to rag on you. You think what you think and feel what you feel.

What I can't understand is why a member or author has to be trashed in order to express an opinion that the idea presented is too sweeping a generalization and can't be narrowed down or is 'nonsense' and here is why or whatever. If it isn't worthy of one's curiosity or interest, then why say anything at all?

 

[Si modo]

Right or wrong or something in between, the author at least obviously struck some chords, hit some nerves, or simply peaked some interest among the group.

Frankly, I dismissed the non-linked, non-referenced, and likely fabricated 'article' from the moment I saw it as nonsense as I usually do with such sweeping generalizations. What almost always piques my interest is lameness in logic. This thread is full of it.

But why? An idea is an idea, good or bad, no matter who thought it up or posted it. If it is a subject that doesn't interest you or strikes you as nonsense, why post in the thread at all? How detailed does a concept have to be in order to not be deemed a 'sweeping generalization'?

I seriously am not intending to rag on you. You think what you think and feel what you feel.

What I can't understand is why a member or author has to be trashed in order to express an opinion that the idea presented is too sweeping a generalization and can't be narrowed down or is 'nonsense' and here is why or whatever. If it isn't worthy of one's curiosity or interest, then why say anything at all?

Why? Sweeping generalizations are logical fallacies.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why? Sweeping generalizations are logical fallacies.

Some phrases labeled sweeping generalization are indeed logical fallacies. But somebody labeling an idea or concept as a 'sweeping generalization' is also a logical fallacy when there is no foundation for the label. Wouldn't you agree?

If I was judging a debate, and one debater makes a statement accompanied by a reasoned argument for why the statement has merit, and you attempt to dismiss it purely by labeling it a 'sweeping generalization' and not offering any argument for why it is, which of you do you think I will award points? And which do you think would lose points?

 

[Si modo]

Why? Sweeping generalizations are logical fallacies.

Some phrases labeled sweeping generalization are indeed logical fallacies. But somebody labeling an idea or concept as a 'sweeping generalization' is also a logical fallacy when there is no foundation for the label. Wouldn't you agree?

If I was judging you in a debate, and one debater makes a statement accompanied by a reasoned argument for why the statement has merit, and you attempt to dismiss it purely by labeling it a 'sweeping generalization', which of you do you think I will award points? And which do you think would lose points?

LOL. The one using the fallacy as an entire hypothesis loses, almost by default.

And, it's not too difficult to identify a sweeping generalization when one uses an all-inclusive word. For those a bit confused on the concept, examples of such would be 'always', 'all', 'every', 'none', etc.

Oh, by the way, nonsensical verbosity wins no points in debate, either. Just thought you might want to ponder that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why? Sweeping generalizations are logical fallacies.

Some phrases labeled sweeping generalization are indeed logical fallacies. But somebody labeling an idea or concept as a 'sweeping generalization' is also a logical fallacy when there is no foundation for the label. Wouldn't you agree?

If I was judging you in a debate, and one debater makes a statement accompanied by a reasoned argument for why the statement has merit, and you attempt to dismiss it purely by labeling it a 'sweeping generalization', which of you do you think I will award points? And which do you think would lose points?

LOL. The one using the fallacy as an entire hypothesis loses, almost by default.

And, it's not too difficult to identify a sweeping generalization when one uses an all-inclusive word. For those a bit confused on the concept, examples of such would be 'always', 'all', 'every', 'none', etc.

Oh, by the way, nonsensical verbosity wins no points in debate, either. Just thought you might want to ponder that.

Apologies. I might have been able to use fewer words to make my point, but simply didn't have time.

So, because the member posting the article failed to include any qualification in her introductory statement--a qualification she would have certainly made had she realized that the omission would become the focus rather than the content of the article she posted--we can therefore dismiss the entire article as a 'sweeping generalization'?

Is there a nitpickers' anonymous somewhere on USMB?