Those Darned Politics Mods!!!!!

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I have always maintained it is proper to discuss the premises of an argument and don't expect others to accept mine. However I don't accept two of the implied premises of PC which are:

1) not offending the feelings/beliefs of others is more important than the truth;

2) regardless of other premises, it's all relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to move the goal posts. He specifically said he was for non-dogmatic debate, and specifically said not PC debate in a follow-up between now and then. In your rush to dismiss him, you mistakenly associated non-dogmatic debate with PCism and flamed him and dismissed the entire point of his thread. Now you continue to pursue this PCism track even when I and the poster himself have corrected you.

Hey, didn't you just post this minutes ago... looks like false and deceptive means are ok so long as you are the one using them.

[ QUOTE ]
They are not however free to use false and deceptive means to do so.

[/ QUOTE ] link

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Arnfinn,

The term "non-dogmatic" connotes PC. And pvn is far from a PC type of poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most PC-ists are wannabe "non-dogmatic". Typically the views they have like "all men are created are equal" or whatever are a result of brave men challenging the established truths, yet they are not willing to let anybody challenge the current truths.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I have always maintained it is proper to discuss the premises of an argument and don't expect others to accept mine. However I don't accept two of the implied premises of PC which are:

1) not offending the feelings/beliefs of others is more important than the truth;

2) regardless of other premises, it's all relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although in debate we don't agree about anything else than that the earth circles around the sun and that Zeejustin got off too easy, I think we agree wrt to open debate etc.. I don't know if I used a wrong word or whatever since it seems to me you say that you disagree with me, then repeat much of the same things I said.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
... it seems to me you say that you disagree with me, then repeat much of the same things I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because he disagrees with you politically and will try to smear you even when you say the same thing he professes to advocate. It's a microcosm for what is wrong with many who discuss politics.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I specifically *denied* a claim that I have an entitlement to the apple - because I don't *need* such an entitlement. You are the one making claim to the apple which is already in my possession - it's up to you to show an entitlement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks again for making it so obvious that I am right. This is what I meant, you state that the apple is yours and that you don't need any entitlement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, the apple is in my possession, else you wouldn't be coming to me to take it. Further, it's obvious that you are unhappy with the status quo. You want the apple.

[ QUOTE ]
You make a statement that the apple is yours, but you present it like something evident that you don't need to back up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where? Keep repeating it. I said I'm not making a claim. I DO have possession, you have to admit that. If you think you're entitled to the apple, all you have to do is make your case. Put up or shut up, as they say.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have any proof supporting your statement, but at the same time you say that statists or others have to disprove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What statement? I've only made two statements about this:

1) I have possession of the apple. You have agreed to this.

2) You haven't demonstrated any entitlement to it.

What do you want?

[ QUOTE ]
If you ask 100 people with different perspectives they will give you lots of different answer to whose that apple is, yet magically exactly your opinion does not need to be backed up, since you have decided so.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter what my position is. All you have to do is show me who's entitled to the apple (not just assert it) and I'll give it to him. I can't just give it to every wacko who says (asserts) "gimmie". There's only one. It's a scarce resource. In the meantime, since nobody has actually demonstrated their entitlement, I'll just hang on to it.

The burden of proof is on the party making the claim. That would be you.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I said I'm not making a claim. I DO have possession, you have to admit that. If you think you're entitled to the apple, all you have to do is make your case.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The burden of proof is on the party making the claim. That would be you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just answered by doing the same thing once over again. You do the following things:
1. Declare that the whole apple is in your possesion and is yours. Notice that this claim is disputed, there is at least 10 million people in the US that dispute it (I would guess maybe 200 million), yet you present it as evident.
2. Place the burden on proof on your opponents, since the apple is fully yours and in your possession, blatantly ignoring that this was just something you declared, not something people agreed to.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I said I'm not making a claim. I DO have possession, you have to admit that. If you think you're entitled to the apple, all you have to do is make your case.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The burden of proof is on the party making the claim. That would be you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just answered by doing the same thing once over again. You do the following things:
1. Declare that the whole apple is in your possesion and is yours. Notice that this claim is disputed, there is at least 10 million people in the US that dispute it (I would guess maybe 200 million), yet you present it as evident.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, if I don't have possession of the apple, WHY are you coming to ME to get it????

[ QUOTE ]
2. Place the burden on proof on your opponents, since the apple is fully yours and in your possession, blatantly ignoring that this was just something you declared, not something people agreed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand the difference between "mine" and "in my possession"?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand the difference between "mine" and "in my possession"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the difference, however as most people I don't think who has physical possession means much, what matters is who owns it. As an example from reality, I had a customer. They decided to transport a piece of technology, they wanted to hire a transport company, but I offered to transport it myself as I considered it to be too valuable to be handed over to a transport company. Then I go and pick it up, sign no papers and then put it in my car. Suddenly I have physical possession of something very valuable that they would be completely chanceless of proving was theirs. And then somewhat magically the burden of proof has been transfered to them and since they can't prove it, I am entitled to it? Lol.

[WillMagic]

arnfinn...any responses to this yet?

[ QUOTE ]
1) I have possession of the apple. You have agreed to this.

2) You haven't demonstrated any entitlement to it.

What do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]

I understand the difference, however as most people I don't think who has physical possession means much, what matters is who owns it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then who "owns" it if not the one in possession of it? We can't divide the apple into 6 billion pieces and give everyone their share. So if you want to take it away from me, you need to have a good case. That seems like a fair point to agree upon and move forward from there.