A lucid explanation of an earlier thread...

[Inquartata]

Hopefully I can return to a full treatment of this tomorrow, now that you've finally provided something approximating evidence for your position. For the nonce, as I'm off to fencing I have only time for this brief observation:

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacking_Faulty_Reasoning

.......

Much stuff from that article

.......

Much other, mostly irrelevant stuff

.......

And then the cream of the jest:

Citing a link to wiki is not argumentation.

Interesting methodology you've got, there---attacking your own tactics!

Which painkiller made you do that?

[fatfencer]

Hopefully I can return to a full treatment of this tomorrow, now that you've finally provided something approximating evidence for your position. For the nonce, as I'm off to fencing I have only time for this brief observation:




.......

Much stuff from that article

.......

Much other, mostly irrelevant stuff

.......

And then the cream of the jest:

[/b]

Interesting methodology you've got, there---attacking your own tactics!

Which painkiller made you do that?

Umm thats citing a link ALONE is not argumentation. That is to say the argument part comes from one's attempt to explain the relevance of said link and how it applies.... something which you most never do. You merely cite the link. The explanation, plus evidence equals argumentation.

moreover, negation REQUIRES evidence just as affirming does. I've cited much evidence. Negation does not have differing standards. It must have the same standard as the affirmative or its not debate or argumentation, its a type of mere inquisition and you sir are NOT smart enough to be in any authority over me.

Fatfencer

PS: The truth is, it'd be tough to find anyone smarter than me using any objective method.

[erooMynohtnA]

moreover, negation REQUIRES evidence just as affirming does. I've cited much evidence. Negation does not have differing standards. It must have the same standard as the affirmative or its not debate or argumentation, its a type of mere inquisition

Nope.

[Inquartata]

That is to say the argument part comes from one's attempt to explain the relevance of said link and how it applies....

Frankly, I would prefer just the Wiki cite to your "explanation" of it, which was a murky and confusing attempt to show that it said things it didn't really appear to say...

Here's an excerpt on from . Edward Damer's Attacking Faulty Reasoning specifically his requirements for claiming and using fallacy.

Fallacies that violate the structural criterion. The structural criterion requires that one who argues for or against a position should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument,

Did you actually READ the article? Heck, did you read the words of the passages you quoted?

The title is "The Five Fallacy Categories". Does categorization imply instruction to you?

And you will note that the section you unwisely emphasized does NOT say anything about "one who questions or dissents from a position being advanced". It merely says that one who advances a position, whether for or against something, should provide an argument. Did you really interpret that to mean that if you say the moon is made of green cheese and I say "Prove it" that I am now obliged to demonstrate that it is NOT made of green cheese?!

If so perhaps your problem is not so much with the rules of logic as with reading comprehension...

He later defines a well formed argument as:

Uh...no...no, he doesn't...

That's just the second of the five categories of fallacy. Please point out where "he" says ( meaning, I guess, what the Wiki author says he says ) anything about "defining a well-formed argument". As opposed to you interposing what you think he should be saying...

The sufficiency criterion [B][U]requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion.

Yes. "One who presents an argument". If you present an argument, that means you. If I just object to it or ask you to prove it, that doesn't make me into you ( thank goodness ) or even into "one who presents an argument". The burden of proof is still on you...

Fallacies such as argument from ignorance, special pleading, and the post hoc fallacy violate this criterion because they are arguments that are missing importance evidence or make causal assumptions based on insufficient evidence.

Can it be that you really cannot recognize what this says?

It says that those fallacies are illegitimate for the reasons cited. It does not say that pointing out an instance of such a fallacy violates any criteria at all...

So, if I claim that unicorns exist because no one has yet proven that they don't ( ad ignorantiam fallacy ), yes, I have violated the criterion being discussed. But you have not. You have merely called me on MY failure, not committed a failure of your own.

And finally: http://www.farragut.cps.k12.il.us/de...gnegative.html

Link won't load for me.

Debating Negative in Lincoln-Douglas

non sequitur. We aren't discussing formal judged debates, whatever the format. We are discussing simple, informal argumentation, specifically the identification of logical fallacies...

Or did you spot a panel of judges lurking somewhere here in the Water Cooler forum, assigning points for adherence to required techniques?

To apply a fallacy arg you need a proposition, substance including evidence...and a conclusion.

This is very amusing.

So, if we are arguing and I say that your position must be wrong because you are a hippie who smokes a lot of pot ( obvious abusive ad hominem ), you would really feel the need to construct a whole edifice of argument showing that you are NOT a hippie and do NOT smoke weed, or that neither is relevant to the validity of your argument? As opposed to simply pointing that obvious fact out? You'd feel the need to gather evidence that a personal attack is irrelevant to the substance of your argument? Really?

Ok so now that you have finally advanced this as a thesis... turnabout is fair play. I cant find this idea in any commonly used textbook on rhetoric, argumentation.

Please do supply us with some kind of evidentiary proof to this, which, IMHO, is complete utter bull****.

Firstly, it's not a "thesis"; it's just my umpteenth rephrasing of the principle of burden of proof, which you seem not to have comprehended in any of its previous incarnations.

However, I will indulge you just this once nevertheless.

Had you followed the Wiki link you yourself cited sufficiently far, you might have noted this part:

"The text also sets forth 13 principles that constitute a "Code of Conduct for Effective Discussion." This code incorporates Damer’s fallacy theory and provides a procedural and ethical standard for the development of an effective intellectual style to be used when engaging in a rational discussion of important issues".

And had you bothered to investigate that link, you might have spotted:

" The Burden of Proof Principle

The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position."

Which is pretty much what I've been saying to you all along, but which you keep insisting is insufficient. Perhaps you'll believe it from your own chosen expert ( but I doubt it ).

Or there's this, from "Logic: An Introduction", by Robert P. Churchill, Second Edition, copyright 1990, St. Martin's Press, NY:

"If you reject the conclusion, you must decide how best to inform your adversary that the argument is unacceptable. In this case, remember three rules: (1) The person presenting the argument must demonstrate why the conclusion is justified. It is not your responsibility to show why the conclusion is unacceptable."

And lest I be accused of selective citation, here's the rest of the paragraph with his other two rules:


"(2) Avoid committing a fallacy of negative proof. Do not suppose that because a fallacious attempt has been made to support a conclusion, the conclusion has thereby been disproved. (3) Do not consider someone who commits a fallacy to be so discredited as to be incapable of making any relevant and valuable remarks. Everyone errs from time to time."

Churchill is Professor of Philosophy at The George Washington University.

And for the Latin fans out there ( you know who you are! ):

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ( "The burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies". )

Citing a link to wiki is not argumentation.

But here's one, anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

It's on argumentation theory. See especially under "Key Components of Argumentation" point #3, viz.

* Establishing the "burden of proof" — determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance.

Finally,

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgode...denofproof.htm

"The concept of a “burden of proof” is important in debates — whoever has a burden of proof is obligated to “prove” their claims in some fashion. If someone doesn’t have a burden of proof, then their job is much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or point out where they are inadequately supported."

and

"An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. "

So, you were saying about "gliss"...?

[fatfencer]

Did you actually READ the article? Heck, did you read the words of the passages you quoted?

Yes but again you are squirreling out the backdoor again implying your 'questioning' as a valid for of argumentation when it suits you, i.e. when you wish to negate something via implication but when I engage you play judge. Which you are not. You are either the adversary, and I happily engage you, or you are an inquisitor with no desire to negate. Being both is not argumentation. It violates, even in informal argumentation the concept of good faith and fair play.

The title is "The Five Fallacy Categories". Does categorization imply instruction to you?

Maybe it does, maybe it doesnt. Show me that it doesn't do both.

And you will note that the section you unwisely emphasized does NOT say anything about "one who questions or dissents from a position being advanced". It merely says that one who advances a position, whether for or against something, should provide an argument. Did you really interpret that to mean that if you say the moon is made of green cheese and I say "Prove it" that I am now obliged to demonstrate that it is NOT made of green cheese?!

In short, YES. You flaming dunderhead yes. Get this thru your head. and...
NO there's nothing wrong with my reading. I am not obliged to prove anything and neither are you. UNLESS we are arguing, then we BOTH must. Because we have engaged in a type of construct, a schema if you will that has some basic rules like good faith and fair play. Whether there is a formal judge or in this case, the peanut gallery we are both trying to persuade. Your notion is that I am constantly wrong and vice versa. When you say 'Prove it' it is standard to say 'Prove it, because I have all this evidence to the contrary and give it.' I usually have some evidence in my affirmations and my negations CERTAINLY do. The whole concept behind negation is to give credence to your arguments. A mere wiki quote insert is not argumentation.

That's just the second of the five categories of fallacy. Please point out where "he" says ( meaning, I guess, what the Wiki author says he says ) anything about "defining a well-formed argument". As opposed to you interposing what you think he should be saying...

The author makes a case that a well reasoned argument is both one free of fallacy and has proposition, evidence, use of evidence via example and conclusion. Moreover, I submit the other evidence from the Lincoln Douglas Debate site which you are conveniently ignoring which DOES say these things. You have to argue the evidence merit of BOTH cites since I presented it.

If I just object to it

you will be ignored as an ineffectual debater, a lazy ignorer of specific evidence that condemned you because it was convenient to do so. if we are arguing there are books that talk about that. but as you say you are questioning my affirmation or any type of argument. My response is to ignore you until you bring something, anything resembling substance to the table.

ask you to prove it, that doesn't make me into you ( thank goodness ) or even into "one who presents an argument". The burden of proof is still on you...

Ahh there in lies the rub for you. yes it does. theres no reason to compel me to respond in a 'non-debate' or 'non-argument' unless you answer the question 'WHY??'

The only way you can do that consistently is with evidence. In otherwords you must construct a 'well-reasoned argument'

In short that means either you decide that you abdicate the role of mere questioner for the sake of true argumentation, a true, good faith method of arriving at some kind of conclusion worth talking about, or you continue in which case I have no reason to respond to you at all. If you've read any book about argumentation, informal or otherwise, other than attempting to just browbeat someone and getting the last word in, every other method of 'arguing' involves good faith investment, research and evidence, on both parties to investigate the matter and arrive at a conclusion. I have shown you this with several sources in earlier posts. The problem seems to be you wish to have your cake and eat it too. You cannot be the negater and the judge.

In other words if you say "prove it, i don't believe what you say to be so because of these reasons and this evidence," I'll respond because you have made an attempt THEN at a well reasoned argument.

If you merely say 'prove it', since you are NOT arguing as you have said many times when it was convenient for you to say so, I will merely ignore you. Do you get it now?

Link won't load for me.

Which one? i will try and find it and email you the material

Meanwhile,
I do provide the well reasoned argument since I am usually affirming and you are negating, but you never bring any evidence to said debate. You just try and tell me that either my evidence doesnt say what I want it to say, which is never true, or that it doesnt apply for some other reason. In other words, you are lazy and ineffectual.

I have asked you, beyond the 'questioning' phase to bring evidence to you negating claims many times. You usually refuse to do so. Arguments have stages and that seems to go over your head. Even Damer would attempt to cite some evidence when attempting to negate. Moreover, it appears on face that cites disagree. Nevertheless the 'higher' standard should apply, I argue, because quite frankly its only an argument when you bring a gun to the table so to speak. Otherwise you are questioning and I am ignoring you...

Or there's this, from "Logic: An Introduction", by Robert P. Churchill, Second Edition, copyright 1990, St. Martin's Press, NY:

"If you reject the conclusion, you must decide how best to inform your adversary that the argument is unacceptable. In this case, remember three rules: (1) The person presenting the argument must demonstrate why the conclusion is justified. It is not your responsibility to show why the conclusion is unacceptable."
And lest I be accused of selective citation, here's the rest of the paragraph with his other two rules:

Its selective reading I'd accuse you of. Besides I have shown you cites that show that negation involves building a case with evidence and argumentation.

However, even within this quote... if you reject the conclusion then do so. BUT when you reject the claim and I show evidence that you don't like or question, in order to continue it becomes an argument and you are no longer merely a questioner. In other words you cannot claim to be a perpetual bystander.

Here's a cite; Informal logic By Douglas N. Walton at http://books.google.com/books?id=ksw...num=8#PPA48,M1

Page 48

" To get anywhere each side must assume a reasonable burden of proof in dialogue, each side must SINCERELY try to justify his or her adopted position and to INCUR commitment when queried"

Even you can hardly argue that I dont commit to arguments. You however labor under the false notion that you can question forever without any commitment to the negation which is patently false as I have shown. Your cites only deal with the initial phase. In other words if I say 'I like A BECAUSE and cite evidence, you, you if you choose to deny, MUST supply evidence of your own because I have already done so in my affirmation.

If I say I like A, but dont say why, if you then ask why or say you don't believe, it is faux pas for me to say 'why not?'

However, that isnt whats happening between us. I'm the one advancing a these with evidence (Jews thread) and you claim say a fallacy exists and thus you deny my argument without any evidence of how the fallacy applies AND you do not actually attack the argument that remains despite any said fallacy... which often did not exist and even if it did much of the arguments still remained. No substantive evidentiary response.

In other words, if I supply no evidence then you need not. theres no argument. But once affirmed with evidence, you are prompted to respond likewise if you wish to join the argument fray. Continuing to question beyond the initial phrase is faux pas and not, according to Walton, kosher...

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgode...denofproof.htm

"The concept of a “burden of proof” is important in debates — whoever has a burden of proof is obligated to “prove” their claims in some fashion. If someone doesn’t have a burden of proof, then their job is much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or point out where they are inadequately supported."

Our debates are so rarely this simple involving concepts that cannot be proven under any circumstance.... this is not relevant. Moreover its not relevant because the issue isnt that I dont attempt some proof in my assertions'

Its that having seen the proof you feel not one burden to respond other than with your 'question'. If I merely advance with a proposition you can call for the clarification which is the rest of the affirmed portion of the argument. Having seen said proof you cannot merely then continue to question. That's been my position all along and my evidence has shown exactly that. Especially that last quote from Walton.

QED

Fatfencer

PS: I attempted, in good faith a quote by quote refutation but was at 15000 words. I had to edit and I did miss some punctuation, typo stuff. I apologize in advance for that. The crux of my argument remains however...





"

[fatfencer]

Nope.

er... Yep....

Fatfencer

PS: Coattailing?.. or are you going to add some useful.

[erooMynohtnA]

Yes but again you are squirreling out the backdoor again implying your 'questioning' as a valid for of argumentation when it suits you, i.e. when you wish to negate something via implication but when I engage you play judge. Which you are not. You are either the adversary, and I happily engage you, or you are an inquisitor with no desire to negate. Being both is not argumentation. It violates, even in informal argumentation the concept of good faith and fair play.


Maybe it does, maybe it doesnt. Show me that it doesn't do both.



In short, YES. You flaming dunderhead yes. Get this thru your head. and...
NO there's nothing wrong with my reading. I am not obliged to prove anything and neither are you. UNLESS we are arguing, then we BOTH must. Because we have engaged in a type of construct, a schema if you will that has some basic rules like good faith and fair play. Whether there is a formal judge or in this case, the peanut gallery we are both trying to persuade. Your notion is that I am constantly wrong and vice versa. When you say 'Prove it' it is standard to say 'Prove it, because I have all this evidence to the contrary and give it.' I usually have some evidence in my affirmations and my negations CERTAINLY do. The whole concept behind negation is to give credence to your arguments. A mere wiki quote insert is not argumentation.




The author makes a case that a well reasoned argument is both one free of fallacy and has proposition, evidence, use of evidence via example and conclusion. Moreover, I submit the other evidence from the Lincoln Douglas Debate site which you are conveniently ignoring which DOES say these things. You have to argue the evidence merit of BOTH cites since I presented it.


you will be ignored as an ineffectual debater, a lazy ignorer of specific evidence that condemned you because it was convenient to do so. if we are arguing there are books that talk about that. but as you say you are questioning my affirmation or any type of argument. My response is to ignore you until you bring something, anything resembling substance to the table.



Ahh there in lies the rub for you. yes it does. theres no reason to compel me to respond in a 'non-debate' or 'non-argument' unless you answer the question 'WHY??'

The only way you can do that consistently is with evidence. In otherwords you must construct a 'well-reasoned argument'

In short that means either you decide that you abdicate the role of mere questioner for the sake of true argumentation, a true, good faith method of arriving at some kind of conclusion worth talking about, or you continue in which case I have no reason to respond to you at all. If you've read any book about argumentation, informal or otherwise, other than attempting to just browbeat someone and getting the last word in, every other method of 'arguing' involves good faith investment, research and evidence, on both parties to investigate the matter and arrive at a conclusion. I have shown you this with several sources in earlier posts. The problem seems to be you wish to have your cake and eat it too. You cannot be the negater and the judge.

In other words if you say "prove it, i don't believe what you say to be so because of these reasons and this evidence," I'll respond because you have made an attempt THEN at a well reasoned argument.

If you merely say 'prove it', since you are NOT arguing as you have said many times when it was convenient for you to say so, I will merely ignore you. Do you get it now?


Which one? i will try and find it and email you the material

Meanwhile,
I do provide the well reasoned argument since I am usually affirming and you are negating, but you never bring any evidence to said debate. You just try and tell me that either my evidence doesnt say what I want it to say, which is never true, or that it doesnt apply for some other reason. In other words, you are lazy and ineffectual.

I have asked you, beyond the 'questioning' phase to bring evidence to you negating claims many times. You usually refuse to do so. Arguments have stages and that seems to go over your head. Even Damer would attempt to cite some evidence when attempting to negate. Moreover, it appears on face that cites disagree. Nevertheless the 'higher' standard should apply, I argue, because quite frankly its only an argument when you bring a gun to the table so to speak. Otherwise you are questioning and I am ignoring you...




Its selective reading I'd accuse you of. Besides I have shown you cites that show that negation involves building a case with evidence and argumentation.

However, even within this quote... if you reject the conclusion then do so. BUT when you reject the claim and I show evidence that you don't like or question, in order to continue it becomes an argument and you are no longer merely a questioner. In other words you cannot claim to be a perpetual bystander.

Here's a cite; Informal logic By Douglas N. Walton at http://books.google.com/books?id=ksw...num=8#PPA48,M1

Page 48

" To get anywhere each side must assume a reasonable burden of proof in dialogue, each side must SINCERELY try to justify his or her adopted position and to INCUR commitment when queried"

Even you can hardly argue that I dont commit to arguments. You however labor under the false notion that you can question forever without any commitment to the negation which is patently false as I have shown. Your cites only deal with the initial phase. In other words if I say 'I like A BECAUSE and cite evidence, you, you if you choose to deny, MUST supply evidence of your own because I have already done so in my affirmation.

If I say I like A, but dont say why, if you then ask why or say you don't believe, it is faux pas for me to say 'why not?'

However, that isnt whats happening between us. I'm the one advancing a these with evidence (Jews thread) and you claim say a fallacy exists and thus you deny my argument without any evidence of how the fallacy applies AND you do not actually attack the argument that remains despite any said fallacy... which often did not exist and even if it did much of the arguments still remained. No substantive evidentiary response.

In other words, if I supply no evidence then you need not. theres no argument. But once affirmed with evidence, you are prompted to respond likewise if you wish to join the argument fray. Continuing to question beyond the initial phrase is faux pas and not, according to Walton, kosher...



Our debates are so rarely this simple involving concepts that cannot be proven under any circumstance.... this is not relevant. Moreover its not relevant because the issue isnt that I dont attempt some proof in my assertions'

Its that having seen the proof you feel not one burden to respond other than with your 'question'. If I merely advance with a proposition you can call for the clarification which is the rest of the affirmed portion of the argument. Having seen said proof you cannot merely then continue to question. That's been my position all along and my evidence has shown exactly that. Especially that last quote from Walton.

QED

Fatfencer

PS: I attempted, in good faith a quote by quote refutation but was at 15000 words. I had to edit and I did miss some punctuation, typo stuff. I apologize in advance for that. The crux of my argument remains however...





"

Your what hurts?

[telkanuru]

I think it's his butt.

[mrbiggs]

I find my feelings towards jews to be a mix of admiration, concern, and mistrust of them as a corporate entity.

Just a heads up (and I don't care enough to argue about this with you or explain why it is, because if you don't understand it already it doesn't matter), this part is where the accusations of racism come from. Statements like "I mistrust Jews."

[fatfencer]

Just a heads up (and I don't care enough to argue about this with you or explain why it is, because if you don't understand it already it doesn't matter), this part is where the accusations of racism come from. Statements like "I mistrust Jews."

Ahh but thats where I think people dont read as critically as I'd like them to read...

There is a big difference between me:

Mistrusting Jews as a corporate entity; a body of people who may, based on quotes from Israeli Government Leaders, Prominent American Jews, and Prominent Former Generals and Secretary of State who say that Jewry, both here and in Israel have an agenda that is different than our own and that American politics is SUBJECT to it...

and me mistrusting Jews as a culture and on an individual personal level because of the words and actions of Jewish Lobby, Israeli politics, etc.

The first is NOT racism I contend because it is not a knee jerk reaction based on fear, or a capitalization on a difference of race, ethnicity, creed, etc.

the latter IS racism and I do NOT support it in any way shape or form.

Now, here's some food for thought.... you took from this statement:

I find my feelings towards jews to be a mix of admiration, concern, and mistrust of them as a corporate entity.

1) that I mistrust them. You skip completely over the admiration, and concern parts and go directly for the mistrust. One of my contentions in the original thread and this one is that, collectively speaking, when it comes to speaking of Jews, that ANY attempt to be critical, whether legitimate or otherwise, is met with the highest form of cruel, knee jerk disdain followed by an immediate shunning. They have managed to shape even the schema of conversation such that people just skip over the parts that are positive and tailgun right for the criticism.

2) My mistrust of them as a corporate body, again stems from what prominent heads of their religious state have said, but doesnt affect, in the slightest, what I think of them on an individual level. I am, first and foremost, an individualist. Again, I also have feelings of both admiration AND concern FOR the same body but no one ever asked what I meant by that. They make an assumption that none of that matters and go right for the jugular, which, I contend, is the wrong vein.

Personally, I never cared what people think of what I believe. I find that sentiment disturbing at best. If I am truly free to believe and expound what I wish, why would I care what people think? However, I explain the above for two reasons:

1) to show how pervasive the 'you are for me or against me' concept is. I am not pro-jew. Frankly, I am not anti-jew either. But because I have been critical of aspects of jewish lobbying and Israeli politics I must be anti jew.

There is a saying. 'Anti-Semitism' isnt what one thinks of the Jews. It's what the Jews decide you are when they don't like what you say. In other words they label you an enemy of the state. The American State that fought against Hitler during WW2. e.g. 'We saved the Jews. How can you be critical of the Jews. Don't you know what we sacrificed as America to save Europe... and the Jews?'

We, the Americans and British, enabled them to exist and thus are obliged to continue this in our media, our language, our culture, etc. It is embedded within us. Why? Who put it there? Why can't we have merely helped them once and been done with it? Why must America be involved with them perpetually?

Because they, the Jews as a corporate body, would have it absolutely NO other way. Our nation FEEDS theirs. The American culture feeds the Jewish one.

2) I also explain the above because I feel that people are railroaded into supporting the Jews due to peer pressure, overwhelming media pressure, etc. This society has a hatred of Nazism... I can understand that. Why we are pro-jew however, is because I feel the Jews, again as a corporate body, have successfully marketed that they are the same. They are not. The whole of Europe was plagued by the Axis.. but I've not read one bit of sympathy from a prominent Jewish figure detailing the events of the Holocaust within the context of millions more dying around them. There is a selfishness in the way they tell their story. It's all about the Jews.

And now that we are at war it seems with the Muslim population... we, as a corporate body, look to the polar opposite of the Muslims.. the Jews.. as 'our one ally in the region'.

Again, horrible, illogical thinking. We need to find a way to make peace with the world and ditch the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all.

With the efforts of the Jewish Lobby, and the willingness of the American public to be duped in to the idea that the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend'... well.... I guess its never going to be that we wake up.

Fatfencer

[thereom4]

FF you want to know why much of what you post is ignored? Because you talk out of both sides of your mouth, aka you're a hypocrite. You insult other peoples ethnicities and try to boil them down to stereotypes. In one thread you talk about giving reparations to African Americans and then you insinuate that I have a made-up name (because no names are made up right) that I live in the projects/ghetto, witnessed violence in the form of school shootings, and that I am economically disadvantaged.

And then here on this thread you talk about your mistrust and admiration of Jewish people. Really? You have the right to believe what you want to believe but just know when you post it to a public forum, you will be challenged.

[fatfencer]

FF you want to know why much of what you post is ignored? Because you talk out of both sides of your mouth, aka you're a hypocrite. You insult other peoples ethnicities and try to boil them down to stereotypes. In one thread you talk about giving reparations to African Americans and then you insinuate that I have a made-up name (because no names are made up right) that I live in the projects/ghetto, witnessed violence in the form of school shootings, and that I am economically disadvantaged.
And then here on this thread you talk about your mistrust and admiration of Jewish people. Really? You have the right to believe what you want to believe but just know when you post it to a public forum, you will be challenged.

This was because you were a ***** stupid enough to insult me. I usually don't let stuff like that pass. As far as I'm concerned someone like you is just a Jar Jar Binks in the world of fencing.....

Challenged? If that's what you call it. I call it whining.

Take a quick survey around your childhood. If it was life at the Hamptons then I stand corrected. Being from Michigan... doubt it. Most of what all people are are their stereotypes. Thats what makes them stereotypes.. on face they are quite accurate.

How homemade is your name anyways. Must have struck a chord. Which vendors accept food stamps for blades anyways? I still cant figure out how you fence....

Fatfencer

PS: When does your shift at Church's start? Can I get a number one with a Coke?

PPS: You REALLY shouldnt trade insults with me. I've heard it all and am too mean for a thin-skinned little whelp like you.

[thereom4]

This was because you were a ***** stupid enough to insult me. I usually don't let stuff like that pass. As far as I'm concerned someone like you is just a Jar Jar Binks in the world of fencing.....

Challenged? If that's what you call it. I call it whining.

Take a quick survey around your childhood. If it was life at the Hamptons then I stand corrected. Being from Michigan... doubt it. Most of what all people are are their stereotypes. Thats what makes them stereotypes.. on face they are quite accurate.

How homemade is your name anyways. Must have struck a chord. Which vendors accept food stamps for blades anyways? I still cant figure out how you fence....

Fatfencer

PS: When does your shift at Church's start? Can I get a number one with a Coke?

PPS: You REALLY shouldnt trade insults with me. I've heard it all and am too mean for a thin-skinned little whelp like you.

I really wish I was this made up person you want me to be but I'm not. I'm concerned for you. I really am. Is your life really that bad? I'm guessing it is. Because if you can get on an anonymous forum and annoy and/or entertain strangers the way you do.....what does your real life look like? So sorry. So so sorry.

[fatfencer]

I don't really care to be. In fact that's the big problem I have with F-net.. anonymous internet macho. Ask around... half of these folks even know where I live.

so anonymous internet macho...that certainly isn't MY problem.

My life is fine. I spend one hour a day, on average, on F-net. It takes me approx 15 minutes to type a 10000 word post.

However, I don't feel the need to be SOOO efficient with my day that I cannot take time out to make miserable someone on the internet. I consider it garnish on the full, usually bourgeois plate that is my day.

Are you miserable yet or must I dig out some 'Yo Momma jokes'?

Am I wrong in thinking I have to drink a 40 to really understand you? Mebbe I should watch some BET... listen to PDiddy, Beyonce, etc.

Oh well, must be off. Hip hop dance class in a few minutes....

Fatfencer

[Phaeton]

As a purely semantic note...I propose that anti-semitic mean hating Semitic people and antisemitic refer to hating Jews.

That said:

I don't really care to be. In fact that's the big problem I have with F-net.. anonymous internet macho. Ask around... half of these folks even know where I live.

so anonymous internet macho...that certainly isn't MY problem

Until one of these people pipes up, I still don't know where or who you are. I will treat you as another internet tough guy. Just because you have a problem with something doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. Lets take an apt example for this thread: self-hating Jews are still Jewish.

That said. It doesn't get you much credibility to talk about on and on how you aren't a bigot and then go on like this:

Are you miserable yet or must I dig out some 'Yo Momma jokes'?

Am I wrong in thinking I have to drink a 40 to really understand you? Mebbe I should watch some BET... listen to PDiddy, Beyonce, etc.

Oh well, must be off. Hip hop dance class in a few minutes....

I think at this point theorem4 already won.

And that isn't per se because of his opinion. It's because you've made a fool of yourself.

As a Jew, I think our foreign policy with Israel has to be examined. I have been accused of being antisemitic for saying that Israeli right-wing policy is actually hurting and delegitimizing the country. Which is weird because...well...I'm Jewish. I think a large part of my local community actually has very intolerant undercurrents, but there are a few synagogues in my area that exempt from this trend.

But even though I think you may of at the beginning had somewhat of a reasonable point, you have taken it far too far for my tastes. You come across as a bigot. You make all of us who want to foster discussion and debate look bad.

I've been gone for a little bit over a year. I come back and you're up to the same antics, and people are still not believing you and your tough-guy schtick. You know, it may be true. You may be a total badass. You may be the best thing since sliced bread. But it may be time to realize that you aren't convincing anyone. Try some new tactics. You can throw thoughts together. You can argue. You seem to be an intelligent person. You're going to come across as a lot more legitimate when you revaluate your strategy.

Or you can just continue what you are doing. All I have to say is that I found what you just wrote to be personally offensive. You have every right to offend me. But I really can't hold your opinion in the same regard after you do, especially when it is unjustified like that.

F-Net really isn't the best place to show off your e-phalus.

[thereom4]

My life is fine. I spend one hour a day, on average, on F-net. It takes me approx 15 minutes to type a 10000 word post.

However, I don't feel the need to be SOOO efficient with my day that I cannot take time out to make miserable someone on the internet. I consider it garnish on the full, usually bourgeois plate that is my day.

Are you miserable yet or must I dig out some 'Yo Momma jokes'?



Fatfencer

YOU

ARE

LAME

10000 word posts really? Find another hobby man. And in 15 min.? Go tell that lie to somebody else.

Not miserable, just concerned for you is all. I doubt you've made anybody miserable. Do you really think anyone here spends their time worrying what FF thinks? Unlikely.

[fatfencer]

[QUOTE=Phaeton;801161]

As a purely semantic note...I propose that anti-semitic mean hating Semitic people and antisemitic refer to hating Jews.

That said:



Until one of these people pipes up, I still don't know where or who you are. I will treat you as another internet tough guy. Just because you have a problem with something doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. Lets take an apt example for this thread: self-hating Jews are still Jewish.

That said. It doesn't get you much credibility to talk about on and on how you aren't a bigot and then go on like this:

Where have you been. I've missed you.

Meanwhile I'm really, for the bajillionth time, NOT a bigot. BUT I will use racial slander when it is used against me. It's merely a tool. I could go another way. I'm actually very flexible. But there isnt one here who is argumentatively powerful enough to make me do so. Watch carefully, my threads don't digress because I do. Oh noo.... not ever. They actually go the way they do because people get bent out of shape when I say something too complex for them to be simplistic about and hurl the usual 'anti-Semite' or anti-(insert race here) line.

That's when I go ballistic. Go back and read, if you wish the original thread. But don't sit here lecture me when you havent read both threads and then attempt to pontificate. Get off your high horse. Gone for a year or no I have no desire to take **** from you or anyone, Jew or no.

I think at this point theorem4 already won.

Oh please.... did she bribe you with fried chicken? They use pig grease for oil you know....

And that isn't per se because of his opinion. It's because you've made a fool of yourself.

Why is this when I didn't start it? I only finish things. The 'Ender' to their 'Wiggin' out about one thing or another.

As a Jew, I think our foreign policy with Israel has to be examined. I have been accused of being antisemitic for saying that Israeli right-wing policy is actually hurting and delegitimizing the country. Which is weird because...well...I'm Jewish.

I'm going to cry I'm so happy. Seriously, No BS, no sarcasm, etc. FINALLY an honest Jew weighs in... Welcome to humanity. It's nice here.

I think a large part of my local community actually has very intolerant undercurrents, but there are a few synagogues in my area that exempt from this trend.

This would explain why I found it SO incredibly difficult to find editorial pieces from Jews/Israelis that were pro my stance. Very few Jews buck the trend let alone write about it. The ones that do are out of favor unless it comes to linguistics.......

But even though I think you may of at the beginning had somewhat of a reasonable point, you have taken it far too far for my tastes.

There wasnt ONE Jew who felt as you did. They immediately, by and large, felt put upon and defensive rather than looking at things critically. Then, of course, there were the Non Jew Caucasian enablers of the group who you'd think just got back from liberating Auschwitz. So much white guilt that even when I have a legitimate perspective I get hatemail. From the Jews, one, of whom now fences in my club.... and is a real pushover in person. Quite a nice guy really. But behind the keyboard hes a raging force for uberJewdom....with a Red Cape and everything. Big chest protector with a thin patina from the Temple of Solomon.

I've been gone for a little bit over a year. I come back and you're up to the same antics, and people are still not believing you and your tough-guy schtick. You know, it may be true. You may be a total badass. You may be the best thing since sliced bread. But it may be time to realize that you aren't convincing anyone.

I'm not here to convince anyone I'm a badass. But time and again I hear that fencing is a martial art from those people who've practiced martial arts regularly for less than 4 years. Regularly meaning at least twice a week and preferably STILL doing MA while fencing. AMoore believes this drivel. Should tell you something. He's alright when shell shock... oh faux pas... PTSD, isn't messing with him. He vacillates between sane and drinking a vat of Gulf War virus... Why oh Why can't the VA get off their butts and help our young soldier? WHYYYYYY!! Damn republicans just dont care. They just use them then throw them out like a busted condom.

Hyperbole aside, he's usually OK and works hard, as i understand it, as a fencing coach of sorts. Good on him.

Fencing is NOT an MA. I mean, have you met some of the proponents of this arg? Couldnt fight their way out of a pissed-on paper bag with sharps!

Also I hear about this MA or that and what they've done and none of it passes muster. I don't boast about my pedigree here and who taught me. Not even slightly Confucian Decorum to do that. So why should I break from that. To please you? To PROVE I'm the best? Words don't prove BEST. Fighting proves BEST in MA. That can't be done on the internet.

I have one jackass, Superscribe, who threatens that he's SO FAST he can accost my wife, slap me and RUN AWAY... not because he's a pathetic coward, but because he's a "Greek God" who's Crafty and SLY. So I challenge him and do i get a name and a willingness to put his body where his mouth is? No. I get pathetic gayness of chasmic proportions. I have 10-1 odds if I get him in the ring that he submits or gets TKO'd in 3 minutes or less.

As for my MA pedigree I'll gladly tell you in person if you ask nicely. Where I can look you in the eye. But frankly you aren't good enough to command me to do so. And its a fallacy to think that I have to convince you or anyone or that I'm trying to. I just repeatedly tell it like it is. No matter how many times Westley tells a story about training with a Texas Ninja with a bionic arm... its just not true....

Try some new tactics. You can throw thoughts together. You can argue. You seem to be an intelligent person. You're going to come across as a lot more legitimate when you revaluate your strategy.

You'd think after being on this forum for 6 years itd be obvious I give better than I get and IN THE MANNER with which I am treated. I see no reason to change this to please the like of you, or anyone. I'm here because it pleases me to be so. Don't hang your dead meat on me.

Or you can just continue what you are doing. All I have to say is that I found what you just wrote to be personally offensive. You have every right to offend me. But I really can't hold your opinion in the same regard after you do, especially when it is unjustified like that.

You are too smart to say something so dumb. If something is true, its true. EVEN if Inq says it. When our token black person gets offended because I think reparations should be made to black America and becomes rude to me...well pardon me if I feel it necessary to drill her a new one. That's half the fun of F-net.

F-Net really isn't the best place to show off your e-phalus.

This really belongs in that other thread about me modelling for a naked fencing calendar. People should pay me money not to do so.... OR ELSE!!!!

Fatfencer

PS: Small quibble... but phallus has two "l"s.

[thereom4]

[QUOTE=fatfencer;801403]

Oh please.... did she bribe you with fried chicken? They use pig grease for oil you know....

You are too smart to say something so dumb. If something is true, its true. EVEN if Inq says it. When our token black person gets offended because I think reparations should be made to black America and becomes rude to me...well pardon me if I feel it necessary to drill her a new one. That's half the fun of F-net.

You are still lame. And yes I did win. I've claimed that victory a while back now. I'm pretty much just using you for entertainment at this point.

That you've resorted to making personal attacks on a person you've never met and will never have the pleasure of meeting, using lame stereotypes, means you lose. (see: ad hominem fallacy)

Note those words I've put in bold. You are a hypocrite. I don't believe you. You need more people.

[Rockstar44]

I think it's his butt.

No, it's not his butt.

[pigeonmeister]

I have no idea why people here are endulging this man's vanity. I very much doubt FF has stongly held views on the 'Jewish Lobby'. Instead, he is so convinced of his intellectual genius and command of the conventions of rhetoric, that he believes his powers of reason can defend any observation. Including the most provocative. He is wrong, but people should have a long time ago ceased passing tissues to somebody openly masturbating.

I'm sure he is a smart guy..he even knows a few good put downs (he has another invitation here, which actually probably undercuts my point above!). But as a human being, 0/10