Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Feb 15, 2004, 10:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Lightberer.....
You don't think my responses were reasonable? I am not surprised. I respoded out of courtesy trying to answer your questions as honestly as I could.

My suspicions were that even if I gave answers you liked you would have stayed up till the wee hours thinking about sone way to claim that I sidestepped your "obvious and simple" questions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Nice strawman followed by ad hominem. I do not consider personal attacks, implied insults and the like to be reasonable responses, and no reasonable person would. That you choose to pretend that I was commenting on all of your responses, and then pretend that you are omniscient and in your omniscience know that my character is necessarily dishonest, is of course itself insulting, arrogant, and intellectually dishonest.

Why rely on these tactics when honest and straight-forward discussion will suffice?

You asked for examples and I presented a few.. another poster here managed to read them and comment on them, so I am certain that the words are appearing on the screen. However, to easily refute your claims again, look to any approved history text. Turn to the sections on the Civil War, and note that the winners are writing the books.. any mention of the fact that succession was not only allowed by the original union of the colonies, it was the ultimate statement of states rights and the freedom which was supposed to be protected by a minimal federal government. Is there even any mention of state's rights in this history text? Of coruse not.

So there you have yet another example. Please do not pretend that it does not appear on your screen, disappearing into the ether with the others..

I have to laugh that YOU imply that *I* am a revisionist. I am actually taking issue with the revisionist histories, the pro-state rhetoric, and the misleading characterizations, and you employ another weak ad hominem implication in an attempt to divert attention from the failings of your own positions? How is it inconceivable to you that those controlling the "information" fed to children would adapt that information to their own ends?

BTW Did you even notice that you claim that I did not answer the question about propaganda in schools, then you quote part of the answer I gave... hard to defend your own criticism when you yourself provide the evidence clearly refuting your claim.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Since it appears to me that you think most things I post MUST relate to you and what you have said, and it evidently angers you that I am not just dazzled into submission by your stunning and irrefutbable logic. Why have you only
responded to my direct response to your questions? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Be ware of your own delusions of grandeur. Contrary to what is necessitated in your assumptions, you are not in fact omniscient, nor are you even remotely close in your characterizations of me used as red herrings and ad hominems. I commented on a post of yours, which appeared to be trying to address some of the issues I raised. You later clarified that you had not yet responded to those issues, and I took your comments at face value.

Why assume negative emotion when your claims are refuted? I have responded to your responses because this is the nature of a discussion. I would personally take it quite well if you would chose to address the issues I have raised and answer the questions asked of you.

Addressing your red herring yet again, what does my current profession have to do with the state of affairs in government schools? And how does having taught in a government university make me an arm chair critic? Keep in mind that no answer you give will have any bearing on the discussion of the nature of government schools BECAUSE YOUR QUERY AS TO MY PROFESSION IS NAUGHT BUT A RED HERRING.

I have answered your questions already, despite your pretense to the contrary. I have given several examples of those able and willing to teach children. I deny your unfounded assumption that there are children who have no access to any adult capable of teaching them anything. The notion is quite simply absurd. Such children do not exist, unless of course they are being raised by wolves. Or perhaps I am just able to see the worth in those who are poor, or in undesirable situations.

As to when, I would stop the abuse of children immediately. I would cease the coercion of adults immediately. I would stop the leviathan today, were it up to me.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Why not respond to the harm in constatnly telling person or profession that they are worthless so often that the prophesy self fulfills?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of begging the question? If not you should familiarize yourself with it, and why it is a fallacy. The above is a wonderful example of begging the question.

And for what it is worth, I have already pointed out that your characterization of teachers as victims is not only false, but absurd. So given that the antecedent of your conditional is false, nothing follows.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
NO SIR!!!!! YOU CHANGE IT!!!! You are the one with the big axe to grind. I will continue trying to improve it realistically and support progress toward better ideas.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I have no ax to grind, rather I have refuted your misconceptions, mischaracterizations, and logically flawed arguments. Nothing more. You may want to consider that one must be willing to recognize reality, understand truth, and know what it means to move forward to accomplish these goals you have set for yourself. Thus far you have emgaged in ad hominem attacks, false premises, and logical fallacies to reach your conclusions. So taking these small samples and extrapolating, it seems highly unlikely that you can achieve the goals you state, or even work towards them.

Your pretense that the feds do not mandate what they recognize as formal schooling is unconvincing, and certainly fails to refute the points and arguments I made.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
When was the last time you saw a reasonable presentation of any situation in which the US government was involved?

I assume you NEVER have.... ever.... hmmm well this one last time I will respond to you....
The response following 911 was reasonable and efficient. I was in Arizona during the fires last summer and the government handeling of the situation was great. I have lived through a few floods on the Mississippi and have always been impressed with the government's aid and response. I thought they handled WWII and Korea pretty well. I think the police departments to a damned fine job considering the enormity of their task for the size of their force. I think our military is a fine presentaion of success (not condoning the wars, just the reasonable presetation of ability).
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Did you chose to ignore the fact that we were discussing schools? Did you also choose to ignore the fact that I spoke specifically of PRESENTATIONS? btw your assumption belies a false dichotomy, another logical fallacy.

Your above claims are absurd. I must admit that I personally do not revel in the taking of innocent life, nor can I find it joyful or something to herald or even to find acceptable. Any who can do so show their character for the world to see and mourn.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
OK I have now walked a mile in these shoes and have attended to and responded to your posts WAY more than you have to mine. Don't bear the light for me anymore please. I have my own thanks.

M5<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Is honesty too much to request? You have left many questions unanswered, many refutations ignored, and most issues raised to the side. Unlike you, I have answered all of your questions, addressed the issues, and refuted the claims and arguments offered. I have not employed ad hominem attacks, insults, mischaracterizations, or other deceptive or irrational behaviors.

Calling darkness light, falseness truth, and emotion reason are all wonderful examples of Orwellian newspeak.. works well in the government schools, is that where you learned it? :)

Feb 15, 2004, 10:50 pm	#42 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Lightberer..... You don't think my responses were reasonable? I am not surprised. I respoded out of courtesy trying to answer your questions as honestly as I could. My suspicions were that even if I gave answers you liked you would have stayed up till the wee hours thinking about sone way to claim that I sidestepped your "obvious and simple" questions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Nice strawman followed by ad hominem. I do not consider personal attacks, implied insults and the like to be reasonable responses, and no reasonable person would. That you choose to pretend that I was commenting on all of your responses, and then pretend that you are omniscient and in your omniscience know that my character is necessarily dishonest, is of course itself insulting, arrogant, and intellectually dishonest. Why rely on these tactics when honest and straight-forward discussion will suffice? You asked for examples and I presented a few.. another poster here managed to read them and comment on them, so I am certain that the words are appearing on the screen. However, to easily refute your claims again, look to any approved history text. Turn to the sections on the Civil War, and note that the winners are writing the books.. any mention of the fact that succession was not only allowed by the original union of the colonies, it was the ultimate statement of states rights and the freedom which was supposed to be protected by a minimal federal government. Is there even any mention of state's rights in this history text? Of coruse not. So there you have yet another example. Please do not pretend that it does not appear on your screen, disappearing into the ether with the others.. I have to laugh that YOU imply that I am a revisionist. I am actually taking issue with the revisionist histories, the pro-state rhetoric, and the misleading characterizations, and you employ another weak ad hominem implication in an attempt to divert attention from the failings of your own positions? How is it inconceivable to you that those controlling the "information" fed to children would adapt that information to their own ends? BTW Did you even notice that you claim that I did not answer the question about propaganda in schools, then you quote part of the answer I gave... hard to defend your own criticism when you yourself provide the evidence clearly refuting your claim. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Since it appears to me that you think most things I post MUST relate to you and what you have said, and it evidently angers you that I am not just dazzled into submission by your stunning and irrefutbable logic. Why have you only responded to my direct response to your questions? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Be ware of your own delusions of grandeur. Contrary to what is necessitated in your assumptions, you are not in fact omniscient, nor are you even remotely close in your characterizations of me used as red herrings and ad hominems. I commented on a post of yours, which appeared to be trying to address some of the issues I raised. You later clarified that you had not yet responded to those issues, and I took your comments at face value. Why assume negative emotion when your claims are refuted? I have responded to your responses because this is the nature of a discussion. I would personally take it quite well if you would chose to address the issues I have raised and answer the questions asked of you. Addressing your red herring yet again, what does my current profession have to do with the state of affairs in government schools? And how does having taught in a government university make me an arm chair critic? Keep in mind that no answer you give will have any bearing on the discussion of the nature of government schools BECAUSE YOUR QUERY AS TO MY PROFESSION IS NAUGHT BUT A RED HERRING. I have answered your questions already, despite your pretense to the contrary. I have given several examples of those able and willing to teach children. I deny your unfounded assumption that there are children who have no access to any adult capable of teaching them anything. The notion is quite simply absurd. Such children do not exist, unless of course they are being raised by wolves. Or perhaps I am just able to see the worth in those who are poor, or in undesirable situations. As to when, I would stop the abuse of children immediately. I would cease the coercion of adults immediately. I would stop the leviathan today, were it up to me. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Why not respond to the harm in constatnly telling person or profession that they are worthless so often that the prophesy self fulfills? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of begging the question? If not you should familiarize yourself with it, and why it is a fallacy. The above is a wonderful example of begging the question. And for what it is worth, I have already pointed out that your characterization of teachers as victims is not only false, but absurd. So given that the antecedent of your conditional is false, nothing follows. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by NO SIR!!!!! YOU CHANGE IT!!!! You are the one with the big axe to grind. I will continue trying to improve it realistically and support progress toward better ideas. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I have no ax to grind, rather I have refuted your misconceptions, mischaracterizations, and logically flawed arguments. Nothing more. You may want to consider that one must be willing to recognize reality, understand truth, and know what it means to move forward to accomplish these goals you have set for yourself. Thus far you have emgaged in ad hominem attacks, false premises, and logical fallacies to reach your conclusions. So taking these small samples and extrapolating, it seems highly unlikely that you can achieve the goals you state, or even work towards them. Your pretense that the feds do not mandate what they recognize as formal schooling is unconvincing, and certainly fails to refute the points and arguments I made. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by When was the last time you saw a reasonable presentation of any situation in which the US government was involved? I assume you NEVER have.... ever.... hmmm well this one last time I will respond to you.... The response following 911 was reasonable and efficient. I was in Arizona during the fires last summer and the government handeling of the situation was great. I have lived through a few floods on the Mississippi and have always been impressed with the government's aid and response. I thought they handled WWII and Korea pretty well. I think the police departments to a damned fine job considering the enormity of their task for the size of their force. I think our military is a fine presentaion of success (not condoning the wars, just the reasonable presetation of ability). <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Did you chose to ignore the fact that we were discussing schools? Did you also choose to ignore the fact that I spoke specifically of PRESENTATIONS? btw your assumption belies a false dichotomy, another logical fallacy. Your above claims are absurd. I must admit that I personally do not revel in the taking of innocent life, nor can I find it joyful or something to herald or even to find acceptable. Any who can do so show their character for the world to see and mourn. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by OK I have now walked a mile in these shoes and have attended to and responded to your posts WAY more than you have to mine. Don't bear the light for me anymore please. I have my own thanks. M5<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Is honesty too much to request? You have left many questions unanswered, many refutations ignored, and most issues raised to the side. Unlike you, I have answered all of your questions, addressed the issues, and refuted the claims and arguments offered. I have not employed ad hominem attacks, insults, mischaracterizations, or other deceptive or irrational behaviors. Calling darkness light, falseness truth, and emotion reason are all wonderful examples of Orwellian newspeak.. works well in the government schools, is that where you learned it? :)