Republicans

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

I'll skip the political part of your post and concentrate on the part directed specifically at my post. It's easily dispensed with, because you -- and I mean you, Talvenada -- know that my point had absolutely nothing to do with things like spelling out RBIs.

So, you want to talk about styles of argument or debate. Here's the one you just employed: sophism. And I mean in its modern usage. You can look it iup.

SMC:

I'm sorry but I don't know what abbreviations you're referring to. If it's Mod Dem, I use political abbreviations. If it's pregers for pregnant in journalism, I understand that. The only sport I follow is baseball, and I cannot think of what you have in mind. So, if you want to imply other than than, go ahead it's irrelevant to me. I'm not part of academia and nor do I desire that path. I respect your input, even though it's not mutual.


TAL

[smc]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

SMC:

I'm sorry but I don't know what abbreviations you're referring to. If it's Mod Dem, I use political abbreviations. If it's pregers for pregnant in journalism, I understand that. The only sport I follow is baseball, and I cannot think of what you have in mind. So, if you want to imply other than than, go ahead it's irrelevant to me. I'm not part of academia and nor do I desire that path. I respect your input, even though it's not mutual.


TAL

Ah, the beauty of sophism.

This has nothing to do with "academia." In deference to those who wish to discuss "Republicans" in this thus-named thread, and at the risk of being accused of avoiding the discussion (or not taking the bait), I will leave it at that. Perhaps I will get back to it another time, but in the meanwhile I will let others engage you. I see they are lining up to do so, and since it's about politics it will be far more entertaining.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

Ah, the beauty of sophism.

This has nothing to do with "academia." In deference to those who wish to discuss "Republicans" in this thus-named thread, and at the risk of being accused of avoiding the discussion (or not taking the bait), I will leave it at that. Perhaps I will get back to it another time, but in the meanwhile I will let others engage you. I see they are lining up to do so, and since it's about politics it will be far more entertaining.

SMC:

Enjoy the entertainment with the self-satisfaction of what you planted, but one person does not constitute a line, as the other was answering a question that was on the table prior to your post.


He who speaks with his tongue on fire
Cares not to come up any higher
But get you down in the hole he's in

Those words remind me of you for some strange reason. Aah, it's must be a debating tool.


TAL

[smc]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

SMC:

Enjoy the entertainment with the self-satisfaction of what you planted, but one person does not constitute a line, as the other was answering a question that was on the table prior to your post.


He who speaks with his tongue on fire
Cares not to come up any higher
But get you down in the hole he's in

Those words remind me of you for some strange reason. Aah, it's must be a debating tool.


TAL

The more I think about it, the more I'm torn between two positions, both of which absolutely, truly reflect what I think and are not "debating tools" for our purposes here.

On the one hand, I truly wish I had never taken the bait (set out by whomever, not necessarily you, Tal) and engaged in this discussion. The reason is that I neither like where it has ended up, because I'd really rather that we all just enjoy the site and not get into these kinds of discussion, and because I can't see this venue as one in which any conclusory synthesis can be developed that brings us to some kind of consensus or understanding or compromise or whatever. And that, after all, ought to be the point of debate.

On the other hand, there's a part of me that wants to open a new thread on "Debating and Discussion Tools" and take on this question comprehensively and definitively -- not the content of discussion and debating tools or styles, but the forms and what they tell us. But that feels too much like my "day job." So, how about this: there is at least a 50-50 chance I will be in Philadelphia when the Red Sox travel there in May. If that happens, I'll buy the beers and we can talk about this face to face.

I really don't want to fight with anyone, even though I am confident that I will always win, and I wish I hadn't engaged in what is turning into an unpleasant fight (and a distraction from why I participate on Trans Ladyboy Forum at all).

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

The more I think about it, the more I'm torn between two positions, both of which absolutely, truly reflect what I think and are not "debating tools" for our purposes here.

On the one hand, I truly wish I had never taken the bait (set out by whomever, not necessarily you, Tal) and engaged in this discussion. The reason is that I neither like where it has ended up, because I'd really rather that we all just enjoy the site and not get into these kinds of discussion, and because I can't see this venue as one in which any conclusory synthesis can be developed that brings us to some kind of consensus or understanding or compromise or whatever. And that, after all, ought to be the point of debate.

On the other hand, there's a part of me that wants to open a new thread on "Debating and Discussion Tools" and take on this question comprehensively and definitively -- not the content of discussion and debating tools or styles, but the forms and what they tell us. But that feels too much like my "day job." So, how about this: there is at least a 50-50 chance I will be in Philadelphia when the Red Sox travel there in May. If that happens, I'll buy the beers and we can talk about this face to face.

I really don't want to fight with anyone, even though I am confident that I will always win, and I wish I hadn't engaged in what is turning into an unpleasant fight (and a distraction from why I participate on Trans Ladyboy Forum at all).

SMC:

That might be possible. The reason I say might is that the biggest articles will be Phillies-Sox, Phillies-Yanks and the trading deadline. I write pre-game and post-game, and those Halladay-Hamels vs. Beckett-Lackey-Lester-Sabathia starts will be hugh pre-gamers. I usually have the pre-game for game 2 ready before game 1 begins, and do the first post-game during the game. I might need every hour I have for writing and photos. I cannot promise anything, but thanks for the offer.


TAL