myhumangetsme: Oy...before you make such statements about a phrase at least do some research. Try starting here (and work your way into the original literature if you can stand it). No, I'm pointing out an obvious implication behind something you said. Autolykos seems to think you didn't intend what you implied, and based on that I'm willing to grant the benefit of the doubt. But at the very least you need to be much more careful with your words. Well, you surely knocked down that mighty straw man. Nonetheless, the specific thing I addressed was not about you being against open borders, but certain points you used to justify your position. And I wasn't alone in what I perceived, so if it wasn't your intention to appear that way, it might be worthwhile to give your words a twice over before submitting next time.
Oy...before you make such statements about a phrase at least do some research. Try starting here (and work your way into the original literature if you can stand it).
No, I'm pointing out an obvious implication behind something you said. Autolykos seems to think you didn't intend what you implied, and based on that I'm willing to grant the benefit of the doubt. But at the very least you need to be much more careful with your words.
Well, you surely knocked down that mighty straw man. Nonetheless, the specific thing I addressed was not about you being against open borders, but certain points you used to justify your position. And I wasn't alone in what I perceived, so if it wasn't your intention to appear that way, it might be worthwhile to give your words a twice over before submitting next time.
I already said that I'm not in favor of this, and for me to justify this any further is insulting. I said that the majority of Latinos and blacks vote for more government, which they do. There's nothing racist about this. Only a white guilt-ridden apologist could possibly draw that conclusion. You're the one throwing out the non-sequitor and then you use straw man argumentation yourself (all while falsely accusing me of this). Unbelievable.
FunkedUp:The question is "how to we go from our current situation to our ideal situation." I maintain that all this talk about open borders cannot even begin to be taken seriously until the welfare state is completely abolished. Attempting to feng-shui around this problem, as Caplan and many other left-libertarians suggest, is completely unrealistic. It will backfire. I'm not anti-immigrant and I'm not for shutting down the borders, but if it were between opening them completely or shutting them down completely then I would unhesitatingly choose the latter. However, I am for "open borders" once all forms of welfare are abolished - completely. That goes for all the native citizens too. Until then, restrict the borders; discriminate against the bums and the parasites, but let the accomplished ones in; let the students that gain acceptance to universities in; let those who already applied to American companies and gained employment in, etc.
I'm not anti-immigrant and I'm not for shutting down the borders, but if it were between opening them completely or shutting them down completely then I would unhesitatingly choose the latter. However, I am for "open borders" once all forms of welfare are abolished - completely. That goes for all the native citizens too. Until then, restrict the borders; discriminate against the bums and the parasites, but let the accomplished ones in; let the students that gain acceptance to universities in; let those who already applied to American companies and gained employment in, etc.
I really think that you still misunderstand Caplan’s rationale behind that somewhat. He only wants to improve the current situation even if it is with welfare. And as a side product, if he would succeed, then this would mean that people start thinking more like economists and with less prejudices about this issues, which is an important step in convincing them of anarcho capitalism.
Finally I guess we agree on the overall theme, but differ on the emphasizes. That’s fine for me.
FunkedUp:The debate here is largely about strategy, something that Libertarians are arguably the worst at out of all the political sects; this is exactly why we don't get anywhere because unlike the marxists, who devote 90% of their time to strategy and 10% to practical theory, the libertarians are exactly the opposite.
That’s our strength not our weakness. The best ideas will prevail even with no strategy to push them, albeit it might take longer.. And I really wouldn’t say that we are still getting nowhere. Compare Mise’s situation in the 1930ies with ours now.
myhumangetsme:No, I'm pointing out an obvious implication behind something you said. Autolykos seems to think you didn't intend what you implied, and based on that I'm willing to grant the benefit of the doubt. But at the very least you need to be much more careful with your words.
With all due respect, I think you misunderstand what I wrote. You accused FunkedUp of making a veiled implication of "racial suicide". I responded that I don't think he was necessarily making that implication - that is, I was reserving judgement on that accusation. If you think "racial suicide" is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote, then you'll need to demonstrate that. Otherwise, I see no reason for you to continue to say that FunkedUp's statements necessarily implied the notion of "racial suicide". Aside from logic, the implication only exists if he made it on purpose.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
You accused FunkedUp of making a veiled implication of "racial suicide". No, I noted a similarity in rhetoric between what he was saying and the rhetoric of those 20th century progressives who proclaimed "racial suicide" were saying. If you think "racial suicide" is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote... Sheesh, two people who wish not to do basic research. Before you accuse others of faulty logic, please make sure your own logic is sound in advance. ...the implication only exists if he made it on purpose. People imply things they didn't mean to (or think they didn't mean to) all the time. Language and its usage has an interesting way of revealing things about people. With all due respect, I think you misunderstand what I wrote. Likewise.
I said that the majority of Latinos and blacks vote for more government, which they do. There's nothing racist about this. I never said there was. You created that argument out of thin air, attributed it to me and disproved your own argument as if it were mine. Try arguing something I actually said. Only a white guilt-ridden apologist could possibly draw that conclusion. If you're trying to convince me that you harbor no racist sentiments, this statement does not speak well in your defense.
myhumangetsme:No, I noted a similarity in rhetoric between what he was saying and the rhetoric of those 20th century progressives who proclaimed "racial suicide" were saying.
This is what you wrote earlier:
myhumangetsme:"Racial suicide" was the rallying cry of the white eugenics/social "efficiency" (read: social Darwinism) crowd from the early 20th century. Since your argument makes a veiled implication in that direction I thought I'd point you towards your historical sources. [Emphasis added.]
Now would you say that the part I bolded above is an accusation or not?
myhumangetsme:Sheesh, two people who wish not to do basic research. Before you accuse others of faulty logic, please make sure your own logic is sound in advance.
Do you or do you not think that the notion of "racial suicide" is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote? Yes or no? I have no idea what "doing basic research" has to do with this. There's no need for me to make sure my own logic is sound in advance because I've advanced no argument in asking you a rather simple question.
myhumangetsme:People imply things they didn't mean to (or think they didn't mean to) all the time. Language and its usage has an interesting way of revealing things about people.
I'm assuming you're using the word "imply" here to mean the same thing as "insinuate". Would you agree that insinuation is a necessarily intentional action? Am I necessarily responsible for any and all interpretations you make of something I say to you?
Basically, it seems clear to me that you accused FunkedUp of insinuating - i.e. hinting at - the notion of "racial suicide". I see no reason to make that accusation, as the possibility exists that he didn't mean to do so, in spite of you interpreting his words otherwise. Do you see what I mean now?
An accusation of what? An accusation of an insinuation of an implication? Are you reading these logical pretzels of yours?
Do you or do you not think that the notion of "racial suicide" is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote? Yes or no? You still don't understand the term, and now you're asking me to answer a question that misrepresents its use. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? There's no need for me to make sure my own logic is sound in advance because I've advanced no argument in asking you a rather simple question. You didn't ask a question the last time, you did exactly as FunkedUp did and levelled a charge without understanding why you were doing it.
I'm assuming you're using the word "imply" here to mean the same thing as "insinuate" Not only was I not using "imply" in the same way as "insinuate," it was quite apparent that I was not doing so. Basically, on this issue, the real problem is your fetish in word and thought with the word "accuse" (and variations thereof) based upon your faulty assumptions.
myhumangetsme: An accusation of what? An accusation of an insinuation of an implication? Are you reading these logical pretzels of yours?
Straw man if I ever saw one.
Let's look at the definitions of imply and insinuate.
Imply:
1) (obsolete) to enfold, entangle.
2) (transitive, of a proposition) to have as a necessary consequence
3) (transitive, of a person) to suggest by logical inference
4) (transitive, of a person or proposition) to express in a suggestive manner rather than as a direct statement; to state tacitly
Insinuate:
1) To make a way for or introduce something by subtle, crafty or artful means.
2) To creep, wind, or flow into.
3) To enter gently, slowly, or imperceptibly, as into crevices.
4) To ingratiate oneself; to obtain access or favor by flattery or cunning.
5) To hint at (something); to suggest or express an idea indirectly.
Let's look at what Autolykos said.
Autolykos: Do you or do you not think that the notion of "racial suicide" is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote?
Do you or do you not think that the notion of "racial suicide" is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote?
Autolykos: I'm assuming you're using the word "imply" here to mean the same thing as "insinuate". Would you agree that insinuation is a necessarily intentional action? Am I necessarily responsible for any and all interpretations you make of something I say to you? Basically, it seems clear to me that you accused FunkedUp of insinuating - i.e. hinting at - the notion of "racial suicide". I see no reason to make that accusation, as the possibility exists that he didn't mean to do so, in spite of you interpreting his words otherwise. Do you see what I mean now?
Based on context, it seems that Autolykos is using the definition of imply that means "necessary consequence". Note how he then goes on to say that it seems that you are using the the word imply to mean "insinuate", which of course means "to suggest or express an idea indirectly".
myhumangetsme: Not only was I not using "imply" in the same way as "insinuate," it was quite apparent that I was not doing so.
Not only was I not using "imply" in the same way as "insinuate," it was quite apparent that I was not doing so.
I'm sorry, but it is not apparent at all that this is the case. Please explain.
So, the questions remain, because you chose to not answer them:
Autolykos: Now would you say that the part I bolded above is an accusation or not?
and
Autolykos: Do you or do you not think that the notion of "racial suicide" is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote? Yes or no?
Do you or do you not think that the notion of "racial suicide" is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote? Yes or no?
If you believe that to be a straw man then I believe you haven't been reading autolykos' statements very thoroughly. Let's look at the definitions of imply and insinuate. No, let's look at the definitions of "imply" and "insinuate" autolykos put forth, since it is those defintions that are at issue in how I answered the question. You're trying to justify an argument built upon a faulty premise, or perhaps more pointedly a faulty presupposition. The sentiments made by FunkedUp absolutely imply agreement with certain sentiments set forth by the early 20th century progressives who used the phrase "racial suicide" as a rallying cry against immigrants and immigration (and if anyone had bothered to read what was contained within the link I posted, the similarities are quite obvious). I did not, however, read anything deeper into it, much less insinuate that he had some larger range of agreement with them. Indeed, I took autolykos' word for it when he said that FunkedUp was not racist nor of racist sentiment. Unfortunately FunkedUp didn't wish to heed my advice about exercising caution with words, and in continuing to talk he made statements which would validate such an insinuation were it to be made. He dug himself a hole in misinterpreting criticism of his position and continued to dig a deeper hole in subsequent discussion.
myhumangetsme: If you believe that to be a straw man then I believe you haven't been reading autolykos' statements very thoroughly.
If you believe that to be a straw man then I believe you haven't been reading autolykos' statements very thoroughly.
He also stated:
You stated:
Where did Autolykos talk about an "accusation of an insinuation of an implication"? He did not make this argument. You are creating a straw man here. Just admit it and move on.
myhumangetsme: No, let's look at the definitions of "imply" and "insinuate" autolykos put forth, since it is those defintions that are at issue in how I answered the question.
No, let's look at the definitions of "imply" and "insinuate" autolykos put forth, since it is those defintions that are at issue in how I answered the question.
Okay. Let's look at his definitions. Oh, wait, you don't provide what you think he meant by them. So what am I supposed to be looking at? I guess we'll just have to wait for Autolykos to clear it up for us.
myhumangetsme: You're trying to justify an argument built upon a faulty premise, or perhaps more pointedly a faulty presupposition. The sentiments made by FunkedUp absolutely imply agreement with certain sentiments set forth by the early 20th century progressives who used the phrase "racial suicide" as a rallying cry against immigrants and immigration (and if anyone had bothered to read what was contained within the link I posted, the similarities are quite obvious). I did not, however, read anything deeper into it, much less insinuate that he had some larger range of agreement with them. Indeed, I took autolykos' word for it when he said that FunkedUp was not racist nor of racist sentiment.
You're trying to justify an argument built upon a faulty premise, or perhaps more pointedly a faulty presupposition. The sentiments made by FunkedUp absolutely imply agreement with certain sentiments set forth by the early 20th century progressives who used the phrase "racial suicide" as a rallying cry against immigrants and immigration (and if anyone had bothered to read what was contained within the link I posted, the similarities are quite obvious). I did not, however, read anything deeper into it, much less insinuate that he had some larger range of agreement with them. Indeed, I took autolykos' word for it when he said that FunkedUp was not racist nor of racist sentiment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that race suicide has to do with the shrinking of a particular race, but not through violence but from a decrease in children born.
What FunkedUp said:
An increase in either of these groups will lead to more government.
How does this statement imply race suicide of whites? It looks to me like he is saying that as the other groups grow, so will government. This is not the same.
myhumangetsme: Unfortunately FunkedUp didn't wish to heed my advice about exercising caution with words, and in continuing to talk he made statements which would validate such an insinuation were it to be made.
Unfortunately FunkedUp didn't wish to heed my advice about exercising caution with words, and in continuing to talk he made statements which would validate such an insinuation were it to be made.
I suppose the irony of the bolded statements will be lost on you.
myhumangetsme:An accusation of what? An accusation of an insinuation of an implication? Are you reading these logical pretzels of yours?
No, an accusation that FunkedUp insinuated (i.e. intentionally) the notion of "racial suicide" in what he wrote. How exactly do you think this is a "logical pretzel"?
myhumangetsme:You still don't understand the term, and now you're asking me to answer a question that misrepresents its use. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Which term do you think I don't understand? "Racial suicide"? Or "imply"?
myhumangetsme:You didn't ask a question the last time, you did exactly as FunkedUp did and levelled a charge without understanding why you were doing it.
Sorry, I didn't ask a direct question. The question was implied by the following:
Autolykos:If you think "racial suicide" is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote, then you'll need to demonstrate that.
So the implied question there is, "Do you think 'racial suicide' is logically implied by what FunkedUp wrote?" You'll also note that I asked this question directly in my last post.
Now then, what charge do you think I levelled?
myhumangetsme:Not only was I not using "imply" in the same way as "insinuate," it was quite apparent that I was not doing so.
Not to me. So let's be clear now. In what sense would you say you were using "imply"?
myhumangetsme:Basically, on this issue, the real problem is your fetish in word and thought with the word "accuse" (and variations thereof) based upon your faulty assumptions.
And which assumptions of mine are faulty, would you say?
gotlucky:Okay. Let's look at his definitions. Oh, wait, you don't provide what you think he meant by them. So what am I supposed to be looking at? I guess we'll just have to wait for Autolykos to clear it up for us.
I consider "imply" to be commonly used in two different ways. One is strictly logical and denotes entailment. The other is used in the same way as "insinuate", namely "to hint at or indirectly introduce an idea". I thought I explained this before, but maybe I was wrong.
gotlucky:How does this statement imply race suicide of whites? It looks to me like he is saying that as the other groups grow, so will government. This is not the same.
The alleged implication isn't about the racial suicide of the "white race" - it's about the racial suicide of the "non-white races". Nevermind, looks like I was mistaken there.
So, to recap, you're incapable of recognizing a humorous representation of the absurdity of how an argument is phrased, and in your world misunderstood humor is tantamount to logical error of the most egregious kind. Gotcha. Okay. Let's look at his definitions. Oh, wait, you don't provide what you think he meant by them. So what am I supposed to be looking at? I guess we'll just have to wait for Autolykos to clear it up for us. So does acting flippant because you didn't follow the argument a valid counterpoint? How does this statement imply race suicide of whites? Did I reply to only that sentence in my initial post? I suppose the irony of the bolded statements will be lost on you. Only to the extent that the irony of your misuse of the word 'irony' will be lost on you, I suppose.
Thanks to your subsequent post I now know that 1) you don't understand the reference behind "racial suicide" and 2) you never bothered to even glance at the link I provided before you began to argue the point (something I mave made note of repeatedly throughout this discussion):
The alleged implication isn't about the racial suicide of the "white race" - it's about the racial suicide of the "non-white races".
From the very first sentence of my link:
Francis Amasa Walker, president of M.I.T., first declared in 1891 what was soon to become an upper-class mantra: Anglo-Saxons were quietly committing "racial suicide."
May we please put this faulty argument to rest now?
myhumangetsme:Thanks to your subsequent post I now know that 1) you don't understand the reference behind "racial suicide" and 2) you never bothered to even glance at the link I provided before you began to argue the point (something I mave made note of repeatedly throughout this discussion):
I will gladly stand corrected on your reference to "racial suicide". I didn't bother to glance at the link you provided, because honestly it wasn't relevant to my argument, which was entirely about your accusation against FunkedUp.
myhumangetsme:May we please put this faulty argument to rest now?
No. First you need to put your red herrings away and respond to the rest of my last post.
myhumangetsme: So, to recap, you're incapable of recognizing a humorous representation of the absurdity of how an argument is phrased, and in your world misunderstood humor is tantamount to logical error of the most egregious kind. Gotcha.
So, to recap, you're incapable of recognizing a humorous representation of the absurdity of how an argument is phrased, and in your world misunderstood humor is tantamount to logical error of the most egregious kind. Gotcha.
But you previously stated:
You just stated that it was "a humorous representation of the absurdity of how an argument is phrased". But it was not an accurate representation of Autolykos' argument. That is why it is a straw man. So, you deny it was a straw man, but then you state it was a humorous representation...so, which is it? If it is not an accurate representation, then it is a straw man. And now I'm supposed to think it was funny? I think you should just admit that it was a straw man and just move on.
myhumangetsme: So does acting flippant because you didn't follow the argument a valid counterpoint?
So does acting flippant because you didn't follow the argument a valid counterpoint?
It's great that I was flippant, but it doesn't change the fact that you did not supply what you believed to be Autolyko's definitons. I attempted to do so based on context and providing the dictionary definitions. You did not attempt to do so. So yes, in this case, I made a valid counterpoint. I pointed out, flippantly, that you made a baseless assertion.
myhumangetsme: Did I reply to only that sentence in my initial post?
Did I reply to only that sentence in my initial post?
No, so I will requote your original post:
myhumangetsme: The majority of latinos vote for more government. The majority of blacks vote for more government. Both by a wide margin. Funny, all the non-Caucasian representatives combined make up only 15% of the House and Senate members. Sounds like white people learned to love more government, too (by a wide margin). An increase in either of these groups will lead to more government. Ah, harkening back to those wonderful "racial suicide" days. Have you ever noticed that the Ron Paul movement is made up mostly of whites (primarily white males)? Have you ever noticed that whites make up over 2/3rds of the total population in the U.S.? Or is that stereotyping too? Clearly, since you seem to conveniently forget that there are differences in support for Paul amongst whites by age, income level, family status, etc.
The majority of latinos vote for more government. The majority of blacks vote for more government. Both by a wide margin.
Funny, all the non-Caucasian representatives combined make up only 15% of the House and Senate members. Sounds like white people learned to love more government, too (by a wide margin). An increase in either of these groups will lead to more government. Ah, harkening back to those wonderful "racial suicide" days. Have you ever noticed that the Ron Paul movement is made up mostly of whites (primarily white males)? Have you ever noticed that whites make up over 2/3rds of the total population in the U.S.? Or is that stereotyping too? Clearly, since you seem to conveniently forget that there are differences in support for Paul amongst whites by age, income level, family status, etc.
Well, it seems that I quoted the only relevant part of your initial post. So, why did you bring it up? Do you feel that the other stuff has to do with racial suicide? I don't see it.
myhumangetsme: Only to the extent that the irony of your misuse of the word 'irony' will be lost on you, I suppose.
Only to the extent that the irony of your misuse of the word 'irony' will be lost on you, I suppose.
You advise someone to be cautious with words, and then, after bitching about how you did not use imply to mean insinuate, you then procede to replace imply with insinuate. See situational irony.
Autolykos: I consider "imply" to be commonly used in two different ways. One is strictly logical and denotes entailment. The other is used in the same way as "insinuate", namely "to hint at or indirectly introduce an idea". I thought I explained this before, but maybe I was wrong.
I thought you had explained it well enough before.
Oh, okay. It sounded like that wasn't the case, since earlier you talked about waiting for me to clear it up. No worries though.
I just didn't want to go in circles about you meant when we could just ask you!
I didn't bother to glance at the link you provided, because honestly it wasn't relevant to my argument, which was entirely about your accusation against FunkedUp. What part of "your entire argument is flawed" have you failed to grasp at this point? You continue to toss the word 'accusation' around willy-nilly without any regard for the fact that the only leg your accusation argument stood upon was a complete misunderstanding of what was being said, which you now acknowledge you misunderstood. The issue propping up the argument is gone, thus the argument is gone. Again, please let the (non) argument rest.
You just stated that it was "a humorous representation of the absurdity of how an argument is phrased". But it was not an accurate representation of Autolykos' argument.
I see we have a graduate from the "Rain Man" School of Humor. Let's recap autolykos's words:
"You accused FunkedUp of making a veiled implication..." "...you accused FunkedUp of insinuating..."
Since humor is foreign to you, here's a quick lesson: what tends to make things funny is exaggerating a point without completely departing from the truth of the point, which is what I did. In haphazardly jumping between two terms which aren't necessarily equal it confuses the whole issue of what exactly is being addressed. Your insistence on an unapplicable logical evaluation of humor, much less an inapplicable logical conclusion, would be funny if it weren't so mind-bogglingly absurd. You don't 'accuse' someone of implying something in the first place; a statement or argument either implies something or it doesn't, it need not necessarily deal with the intent of the person making the argument. An insinuation necessarily deals with an intended (and usually negative) implication(s) advanced by a person in making a particular statement or argument. FunkedUp's argument implied agreement with the arguments advanced by people against immigration who gathered under the banner of "racial suicide" based on the similarities of their statements, which I pointed out. I did not accuse him of anything, I stated an observation of this similarity. Well, it seems that I quoted the only relevant part of your initial post. Relevant to what? The acknowledged dead horse of an argument from autolykos that you're determined to keep beating? The entire post was relevant to the extent that I was pointing out to FunkedUp that many of his arguments did not reflect an appropriate measure of logical balance. It was FunkedUp and autolykos who decided to focus on that one thing out of the entire post, not me. You advise someone to be cautious with words, and then, after bitching about how you did not use imply to mean insinuate, you then procede to replace imply with insinuate. See situational irony. I didn't "proceed to replace imply with insinuate". I used insinuate deliberately in that instance, since the argument was advanced that I either insinuated something about FunkedUp in my first post or that I "accused" FunkedUp of insinuating/implying something in my first post, when my subsequent posts made very clear that I did no such thing. At that point, FunkedUp had said nothing that led me to believe he was insinuating anything about his beliefs. But in defending himself against this non-existent accusation, he volunteered information about his opinions that could lead someone to accuse him of the very insinuations he said he wasn't making. That's about the only irony to be found in this situation, although that irony was clearly lost on you.
myhumangetsme: Since humor is foreign to you, here's a quick lesson: what tends to make things funny is exaggerating a point without completely departing from the truth of the point, which is what I did. In haphazardly jumping between two terms which aren't necessarily equal it confuses the whole issue of what exactly is being addressed. Your insistence on an unapplicable logical evaluation of humor, much less an inapplicable logical conclusion, would be funny if it weren't so mind-bogglingly absurd. You don't 'accuse' someone of implying something in the first place; a statement or argument either implies something or it doesn't, it need not necessarily deal with the intent of the person making the argument. An insinuation necessarily deals with an intended (and usually negative) implication(s) advanced by a person in making a particular statement or argument. FunkedUp's argument implied agreement with the arguments advanced by people against immigration who gathered under the banner of "racial suicide" based on the similarities of their statements, which I pointed out. I did not accuse him of anything, I stated an observation of this similarity.
Since humor is foreign to you, here's a quick lesson: what tends to make things funny is exaggerating a point without completely departing from the truth of the point, which is what I did. In haphazardly jumping between two terms which aren't necessarily equal it confuses the whole issue of what exactly is being addressed. Your insistence on an unapplicable logical evaluation of humor, much less an inapplicable logical conclusion, would be funny if it weren't so mind-bogglingly absurd. You don't 'accuse' someone of implying something in the first place; a statement or argument either implies something or it doesn't, it need not necessarily deal with the intent of the person making the argument. An insinuation necessarily deals with an intended (and usually negative) implication(s) advanced by a person in making a particular statement or argument. FunkedUp's argument implied agreement with the arguments advanced by people against immigration who gathered under the banner of "racial suicide" based on the similarities of their statements, which I pointed out. I did not accuse him of anything, I stated an observation of this similarity.
If you really meant it as a joke, then when I said it was a straw man, you should have responded with, "It was a joke." However, you did not do this. Instead, you said it was not a straw man. So either you were making a joke by not accurately representing Autolykos' position, or you were creating a straw man. So, either you were dishonest then or you are dishonest now.
Protip: If you really want to be funny, you should try recreating someone's argument in a funny way, maybe with a reductio ad absurdum. But misrepresenting someone in a debate is not likely to make anyone laugh.
myhumangetsme: Relevant to what? The acknowledged dead horse of an argument from autolykos that you're determined to keep beating? The entire post was relevant to the extent that I was pointing out to FunkedUp that many of his arguments did not reflect an appropriate measure of logical balance. It was FunkedUp and autolykos who decided to focus on that one thing out of the entire post, not me.
Relevant to what? The acknowledged dead horse of an argument from autolykos that you're determined to keep beating? The entire post was relevant to the extent that I was pointing out to FunkedUp that many of his arguments did not reflect an appropriate measure of logical balance. It was FunkedUp and autolykos who decided to focus on that one thing out of the entire post, not me.
Okay, but we are talking about your accusation, which I quoted from your initial post. You then proceeded to ask me if I quoted all of your post. So, why did you bring it up if you are acknowledging the rest of your post was irrelevant to the debate at hand?
myhumangetsme: I didn't "proceed to replace imply with insinuate". I used insinuate deliberately in that instance, since the argument was advanced that I either insinuated something about FunkedUp in my first post or that I "accused" FunkedUp of insinuating/implying something in my first post, when my subsequent posts made very clear that I did no such thing. At that point, FunkedUp had said nothing that led me to believe he was insinuating anything about his beliefs. But in defending himself against this non-existent accusation, he volunteered information about his opinions that could lead someone to accuse him of the very insinuations he said he wasn't making. That's about the only irony to be found in this situation, although that irony was clearly lost on you.
I didn't "proceed to replace imply with insinuate". I used insinuate deliberately in that instance, since the argument was advanced that I either insinuated something about FunkedUp in my first post or that I "accused" FunkedUp of insinuating/implying something in my first post, when my subsequent posts made very clear that I did no such thing. At that point, FunkedUp had said nothing that led me to believe he was insinuating anything about his beliefs. But in defending himself against this non-existent accusation, he volunteered information about his opinions that could lead someone to accuse him of the very insinuations he said he wasn't making. That's about the only irony to be found in this situation, although that irony was clearly lost on you.
I find it interesting that you used insinuate in that instance instead of imply. Previously, you had been using imply in what seems to have been the same way as you are currently using insinuate. I suspose you realized that you wanted to be more clear and decided that insinuate would be clearer than imply, which was kind of what Autolykos was getting at. But what I find strange is that you didn't acknowledge that you were going to do so. It makes you look shifty.
However, this is all beside the point. What I want to know: what in the following statement makes you think FunkedUp was implying/insinuating race suicide of whites?
FunkedUp: An increase in either of these groups will lead to more government.
This was the statement that you claimed was "harkening back to those wonderful 'racial suicide' days."
So what's the moral core of the social system he's critiquing?
Altruism. The idea that you owe another a living.
Altrusim as a moral concept can only be combatted on moral grounds. Where's the wedge?
Coercion. We must attack altruism in its rotten heart--where it tries to maker coercion moral, tries to make an evil means moral by a supposedly moral end. But an moral end cannot redeem an immoral means.
We must latch onto the immorality of any form of coercion. Without coercion, the statist left is defanged utterly.
If you really meant it as a joke, then when I said it was a straw man, you should have responded with, "It was a joke." However, you did not do this. Instead, you said it was not a straw man. So either you were making a joke by not accurately representing Autolykos' position, or you were creating a straw man. So, either you were dishonest then or you are dishonest now. Seriously, just stop. You are shifting from one logical inconsistency to the next is search of a justification for arguing about this particular point, a justification that will never come (unless you believe outlasting your conversant is tantamount to a justification).
Protip... The day I need a protip from you about anything humor-related is the day I expect to hear the Four Horsemen clomping up a nearby hill while Roseanne is being sworn in as the Grand Almighty Omnipotent Stomper of the U.S.. You understand humor like the modern papacy understands the best sexual positions.
Okay, but we are talking about your accusation... Oh you mean that non-accusation based on a misunderstanding that I just very clearly pointed out in the last post and the post before that? Glad to see you're caught up on current events.
I find it interesting that you used insinuate in that instance instead of imply. I find it interesting that you find it interesting indeed, given all of your well-thought out analysis to this point. You have given me no reason to expect that anything of value will result from discussing this with you further. This will therefore be my last post in response to you.
myhumangetsme:What part of "your entire argument is flawed" have you failed to grasp at this point? You continue to toss the word 'accusation' around willy-nilly without any regard for the fact that the only leg your accusation argument stood upon was a complete misunderstanding of what was being said, which you now acknowledge you misunderstood. The issue propping up the argument is gone, thus the argument is gone. Again, please let the (non) argument rest.
Absolutely not, because it's hardly a non-argument. The argument is still completely present, and nothing you've done has made it go away.
But it's clear to me now that you misunderstand my argument. I point to what you wrote in response to Gotlucky as evidence of this:
myhumangetsme:You don't 'accuse' someone of implying something in the first place; a statement or argument either implies something or it doesn't, it need not necessarily deal with the intent of the person making the argument. An insinuation necessarily deals with an intended (and usually negative) implication(s) advanced by a person in making a particular statement or argument. FunkedUp's argument implied agreement with the arguments advanced by people against immigration who gathered under the banner of "racial suicide" based on the similarities of their statements, which I pointed out. I did not accuse him of anything, I stated an observation of this similarity.
FunkedUp's argument implied agreement with the arguments advanced by people against immigration who gathered under the banner of "racial suicide" based on the similarities of their statements, which I pointed out. I did not accuse him of anything, I stated an observation of this similarity.
If FunkedUp's argument logically entailed agreement with the arguments advanced by people against immigration who gathered under the banner of "racial suicide", then you'd have no problem pointing that out. But you haven't, even when explicitly asked to do so. Instead, it seems that you simply see a resemblance between his argument and those of people who subscribe to the notion of "racial suicide". You then use that alleged resemblance to accuse FunkedUp, by proxy, of also being a subscriber to that notion, which implies (logically) that the resemblance between his argument and those of the "racial suicidists" is certainly intentional on his part. My whole point has been that it's quite a stretch IMHO to go from his arguments to those of the "racial suicidists". I see no logical reason to believe that he must have been intentionally patterning his argument on theirs.
myhumangetsme:Seriously, just stop.
Telling someone to stop around here isn't likely to make them stop. It certainly won't have that effect on me.
myhumangetsme:You are shifting from one logical inconsistency to the next is search of a justification for arguing about this particular point, a justification that will never come (unless you believe outlasting your conversant is tantamount to a justification).
In that case, you should have no problem whatsoever pointing out exactly what those logical inconsistencies are. The fact that you haven't done so already may be telling.
myhumangetsme:The day I need a protip from you about anything humor-related is the day I expect to hear the Four Horsemen clomping up a nearby hill while Roseanne is being sworn in as the Grand Almighty Omnipotent Stomper of the U.S.. You understand humor like the modern papacy understands the best sexual positions.
Personal attacks like this don't advance your position one bit. It sounds to me like you're the one who believes that outlasting your conversant is tantamount to a justification - if you can attack and insult him to the point where he shuts up.
myhumangetsme:Oh you mean that non-accusation based on a misunderstanding that I just very clearly pointed out in the last post and the post before that? Glad to see you're caught up on current events.
The misunderstanding was irrelevant to the accusation, as I've pointed out in my last post. More specifically, which race(s) is/are alleged to be "committing suicide" under the historical notion of "racial suicide" is irrelevant.
myhumangetsme:I find it interesting that you find it interesting indeed, given all of your well-thought out analysis to this point. You have given me no reason to expect that anything of value will result from discussing this with you further. This will therefore be my last post in response to you.
Taking your ball and going home, are you? Don't expect Gotlucky - or me, for that matter - to honor this. It sounds like you're running away. Why is that? If your position is so solid, shouldn't it be easy for you to convince us of it?
I don't think you're going anywhere.