08-14-2020, 10:30 PM
(08-14-2020, 10:12 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? Why didn't you "get" that I said the authors' military experience "suggests" they are in a position to know something, but added that experience itself is not "proof" of anything? Everything still rests with the quality of the argument. Same for military officers who disagree.
I got it, it just isn't put into practice,
Quote:No standard in my argument of "whom I agree with" or not. "Law enforcement or firearms related topics"--sounds like you are really angry about something else here, some "inconsistency" you can accuse but not specify/prove or directly relate to the thread topic but can't forget either.
Your posting history suggests otherwise.
Quote:I don't think you have "noticed" that logic in my arguments tends to be what I agree with, at least not in any demonstrable way. Logic is like mathematics; it isn't "what I agree with" but a means of demonstration which follows rules--the same rules for everyone, rules everyone can grasp.
Again, your posting history suggests otherwise.
Quote:Whether Trump "wins" depends not on a vote of military personnel, but on the quality of his side's argument. It's only when you confuse arguments with opinions that you don't follow this point. That also when you talk of logic being only "what I agree with." As if just saying it's so, made it so.
No, it's your posting history that led me to this conclusion.
Quote:Well no, they do swear an oath to US and state constitutions; I went a bridge to far there. But their exercise of power is local, restricted to a city.
Ahh, so they do sweat an oath to the Constitution, but it's ok when they break it because it only affects local people. At least, as stated in this thread, as long as it's not you and Nati.
Quote:You've been invited to show why local abuses (which you have not yet established) should be of more concern than national.
Who said they should be of more concern? I said a far better argument could be made that they violated their oath of office than Trump has. Please restrict yourself to responding to arguments I actually made.
Quote:Well no. Recognizing the priority, and greater danger, of abuse of power at the executive level neither implies nor entails that I am "fine with abuse of power as long as it does not directly affect me."
No, it's your actual statement i this thread that implies that.
Quote: Not sure you know what "solipsism" means. You have misused the word before. It wouldn't apply in this case even if I and my "other friend" were "fine with the abuse of power as long as it does not directly affect me."
No, I'm far too stupid to understand that word. I mean, it's not like your statements that you only care about what affects you, hence inferring that your consciousnesses is the only one that exists or is important constitutes a sollislistic point of view. I suppose I should be thankful you didn't start with LOL.
Quote:In all of the above, it looks like you just free-associate objections to my points, which cannot actually be deduced from those points. The root of the problem seems to be that you don't see any difference between a conclusion argued from and restricted by premises (evidence), and a "feeling" or impression you get from someone's statement.
Nah. For some reason this statement reminds me of Damon Wayans' "street businessman" routine.
Quote:In the past I have characterized your arguments as "centrifugal." You spin off unsupported objections and non-sequiturs in many directions, never stopping to secure or demonstrate them individually, as if just making them at once proved them. From the first claim, that expertise is only relevant from people I agree with, to the one just above, that I'm "fine with abuse of power," that is all you have done here. It's like a dump of negative "impressions," for which take no further responsibility for once dumped.
This is coming from the same person who saw Fred's arguments as compelling and insightful. You'll forgive me for taking a jaundiced view of your opinion in this regard.
Quote:And none of this really relates to the thread topic. If you really know the difference between an argument and an opinion,
Nope, I'm too stupid.
Quote:then why not address the reasoning of Nagl, Yingling and Murphy as posted. Identify their premises, then challenge them or the validity of conclusions drawn from them. Don't patter around my posts will little quips and unsupported accusations/objections.
For the same reason I don't argue with a flat Earther, Alex Jones or an antivaxer. They have their opinions, their opinions are truth to them and I don't care to waste my time. I've already explained what I find objectionable about this "letter" and why. If that doesn't suffice for you then I suppose I'll just have to try and not let it keep me up at night.
Fifth times the charm though, eh?
