Staredit Network

Not to mention a lot of weapons that challenged the United States.

Yes, succesful and only succesful at churning out weapons, at the expense of everything else. If you call the USSR a successful nation, you are either plain wrong or are so far-left-wing that you will support anything associated with the left.

So.. can someone give me the definition of wrong without the use of point of view?

No?

Wrong is the opposite of right. There, I just defined wrong without the use of point of view.

-_-

..

.. Fine, define both right and wrong without begging the question and using point of view.

Why do you hold the point of view that "point of views" are bad?

Why do you have so many strawman fallacies?

That's because wrong is exactly that, opinion. If someone refuses to admit it, it's not fact in there mind, no fact is definite, since someone can always refuse them.

Hahaha, how does that in any way pertain to what I wrote?

They say I go off topic!

You have an obsession with acting like you are free from all bias, when everyone knows, surely including those who agree with you, that you aren't. Answer my above post, unless you simply can't.

Because you don't know what a strawman fallacy is. I don't think you know what a fallacy is either.

Sad.


Sighs.. another strawman fallacy. <-- funny because you did it on purpose. Hmmmmmmmmm

I guess it is a trait all leftists have: the opposing side to them believes "opinions" and is full of bias, but the leftists themselves are always pure and unbiased.

I think someone without bias would be unable to actually belong to a political party at all. I'm biased, I have biasism, and I can admit that I'm not an infailable, but it's a Nietzsche quote. "No facts are infailable". It's true, you can not believe that something is right, and if everyone, absolutely everyone of every time, place, and condition, agrees with you, you are right. In fact, you can even ignore this fact, therby proving it correct while believing it is wrong! Ah, the wonders of the human mind.

The word fallacy doesn't even fit here, it's you who are throwing words around without knowing meanings. I asked you question, and you said I stated a fallacy... incredible!

Plus, you were the one that, in the same post you claimed I used "big words" without knowing that they mean, said that "libertarian" meant "liberal". Maybe that should be my new quote, especially considering that Sir_Fela_The_Wise isn't anywhere near as bad as you.

And you still dodge what I said!

I didn't dodge. You are commiting a fallacy. Want to know what a strawman fallacy is?

It essentially means to quote and misinterpret. Congratulations.


Bad?


Although not quite as bad, it's still a fallacy.


Simple, it's a fallacy, thus, I can dismiss it from your arguements.


Again, putting words in our mouths.

Perhaps you should simply do what I asked you too: define good or bad without begging the question nor using point of view. If you can successfully do that, then you are, and forever will be, the greatest human being who lived (which is another point of view!).

Request: Give me your aim or msn so I can debate with you in real time. This stuff is too slow.

Thy Logicman Cometh! Seems ihatett's "debating" strategy of infuriate and strike isn't working on Cheeze. Ihatett is also committing another logical fallacy, attempting to attack the persons arguing against him. Genius way to disprove what people say. "I think people should have freedom of speech." "But you're an alcoholic liberal, no one should listen to you."

Two things about that:

1. I was not making a point (I now am), I was asking a question. It was amusing to me seeing you and other biased people here always campaign against all bias and points-of-view, and I wanted to hear what you said about it.

2. I was not twisting what you said. There was no reason for you to ask your question unless you felt that the the concept of "point of view" invalidates the concepts of right and wrong; Your other posts about liberals being "open minded" and "willing to consider all views" show that your obsession against it isn't an isolated case.



You, like theoratical_human, don't believe in right and wrong. You don't believe that prying the fingernails off a 6-year-old girl in front of her mother is wrong; you instead feel that it's only because of our culture. If this isn't the case, then by all means correct me!

Yay, another strawman fallacy. And because of that, I will not respond to your main post except to await the question I asked. (Totally irrelevant, but you are the one dodging because I ASKED FIRST!! )


LOL, another strawman fallacy. You make too many.

Freedom of speech means that the government won't artifially restrain you from getting your voice out (the constitution is even more specific); it has nothing to do with whether people should listen to a far-left liberal.


edit: mistake in my sig

Cheeze could have misread it or something. Besides, are you saying that libertarians can't be liberal?

However, I guess we have developed biases. That doesn't mean that we will get so biased as to become conservative. No, we're just biased against the other parties, not the issues themselves. That's where liberals truly shine. They are biased, but only against people. Is that so hard to understand? Most people have proven themselves to be idiotic down to the core. When it comes to issues, we look at them logically and fairly. When it comes to the showing of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, we must look at religious freedom. Showing the Ten Commandments, a strictly Jewish and Christian (I dare not say artifact) item, is to shout to the world, "America is Christian!" When it comes to stem cell research, we must compare day-old embryos to hundreds of thousands of possible lives saved. When it comes to (it's a clearly professional usage, but I still can't use ) homosexual and bisexual rights, we listen to humanity itself.

I do not agree with communism, nor do I agree with totalitarianism, because it is a lack of freedoms for the citizens of its nation. In our representative democracy, we have the power to vote for anything! If we wanted to all vote for people who would get rid of taxes, we would! But, we haven't.

Ihatett, I wasn't debating the issuse of freedom of speech, I was stating the fallacy you're making by attacking your opponents instead of lsitening to their arguments and responding to them. I am Theoretical_Human, by the way. Can you show me how that supposed evil is evil outside of culture? The burdon of proof doesn't lie on the people saying something doesn't exist, you can't prove that something doesn't exist, you must prove that it does exist.

Wilhelm (I guess whoever else is interested in learning how to debate properly), read some of these:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php

To get you started, the two fallacies he's making by your observations are:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/af.php
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php

Keep in mind, I am not saying he did make these mistakes because I haven't actually checked that part. I try to throw out any mud-slinging within a post and completely ignore it.

Awesome, I'm an official socialist now!

Well I can see a lot has happened sine I last replied. Maybe you guys should take this into an AIM conversation or start a new topic about the art of debating, because this is getting really off-topic.

Get on topic! -_- How does this have to do with democracy, communism, or totalitarian?

Maybe the different governments carry out political debates differently?

Sorry guys. I'll stand by my original response: it depends entirely on what you're trying to do. Either to advance or to please. It's difficult to do both (possible!) but not in any known government types. Unless you can mind control people (wooo, go 1984!).

Totalitarian would be the best if the leader is smart.

Democracy would be the best if the majority is stupid. (No offense if anyone is offended)

Communism would be the best if greed did not exist. (Since this is impossible, I don't favor it)

My post above was given to people who seemed to show potential that they can argue on a larger scale. I know it was off topic, but I'm hoping everyone can benefit from reading it.