Squiggs, I find it easier just to ignore stupid people. ..instead of getting all riled up. :)
But, for the record though, I am with dirk 100%.
Someone once told that when a man knows he is right he has no reason to argue.
edit
I know that you're with him--it's how your with him that keeps me from getting all riled up at you.
You beg the question, but rarely have I seen you purport yourself to know the answers. Most of what I've seen from you has been absolutely informational--now in my opinion you make some jumps and assumptions that are a bit out of reach, but much of what I've seen you rant about has been
at the very least supported by some type of undisputed, documented, facts.
We disagree on the meaning of those facts, but I can respect and reply meaningfully to arguments which are supported in this way.
You're fully within your rights to believe dirk has done that here--but I think if we literally had any debate team coach, or member, in the entire country or any other country and had them look over this thread, they'd say that dirk has failed to make a cogent argument here.
Most would more than likely say that he's never been involved in any type of logical debate (defined by the rules of logic which debate is restricted to in this sense)--and that were this an actual debate (happening on a team or something) that dirk never stood a chance in the first place.
It's just like the chemistry argument I made before, if you don't know about chemistry I can convince you of anything (if you believe I am credible)--you wouldn't know the difference. For the same reason, many people here might think dirk is being logical in this defined sense (not as it appeals to your gut, I'm talking about a real process here like a trial, or a surgery--there are rules)--because they don't have a reference frame for what that definition is or what the rules are.
I don't fault anyone for not being brushed up on the finer points of logical debate, most people find that crap boring.
Well boring it may be, but it's also a useful skill which we as a society are quickly losing. Go back 50 years and you'll find a completely different story. Something needs to change that.
People have become too convinced of themselves, and too averse to criticism. For lack of a better way to say it, people are now giant enormous pussies who can't take the thought that they might be wrong. So they dodge this defined way to find a logical answer and instead go with whatever the fuck comes out of their yap.
You're right, I probably should just ignore people like this--but I feel like I'd be doing a disservice to anyone on the fence if I didn't present a counterargument, even if the original argument didn't really justify one. In truth I've never been talking to dirk, until the very end just now when I got tired of the personal attacks. I've been talking to the people who might listen to dirk, by trying to expose his lack of knowledge as to the finer points here--and to expose his flawed logic.
Anyone here can believe what they want, and I won't try to stop them--but I will certainly offer an alternative when people are talking crazy. Fact remains that there isn't a person in the world who is a student of Aristotle's rules of logic (yes, we use these same rules today in debate teams and such) who would think even for a second that dirk followed them anywhere in this thread.
He hasn't, and that's the skinny.
As conspiracy theorists go, not many of them do. That's why I give you slack kolah--I haven't minced words with you about this, I've been totally honest with you in the past. I think you're a little overparanoid and you jump to too many conclusions with not enough evidence--but as long as you keep framing your arguments in a logical and sane way, I will keep considering them and refraining from attacking your assumptions.
Who am I to say whether or not an assumption is wrong? No one. I don't know one way or the other. I'd be just as bad as dirk to do that.
What I can do is identify when assumptions have come out of thin air, without any
well documented and accepted support to float them on. That is what dirk has been doing here.
I actually find some of the stuff you post interesting, even if in the end it seems crazy to me--because it's not a huge waste of time. Even if I don't like your assumptions, I learn something about the facts you've brought to bear. That's how a discussion should work--not this correctness entitlement that everyone else seems to want to run things off of.
