I Do Too Back Up My Arguments!!

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 8, 2015 23:26:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 8, 2015 22:40:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You tend to be more of a "sometimes support my contentions with really shaky arguments" kind of guy, rather than a "don't bother to support my contentions" kind of guy.

i think i support things quite well, Virgil.  for example, in the recent discussion about supply side economics, i posted about 20 pages worth of studies on the topic to support my POV, as well as some data that took me an entire weekend to compile.  i honestly don't recall anyone else on this board ever being that thorough with any topic presented here in the last three years, but perhaps i am forgetting someone.

then again, we weren't talking about anyone else, just me.

Although, having said that, one case that immediately comes to mind was you accusing the NRA of "bitching about" the Byron Smith conviction, which turned out to be a complete fabrication. The NRA hadn't taken a position on the case.

i have no idea who you are talking about.  you must be mistaking me for another poster.  for the record, i am a gun rights advocate.

There was the NAMBLA thread where you vehemently denied that NAMBLA members self-identified as liberals

no.  that is not what i denied.  what i denied is that there was anything liberal about that organization.  your claim was basically that liberals would welcome NAMBLA with open arms (i believe you used the term "natural fit"), and that was clearly false.  i don't know of ANYONE that wants to be associated with NAMBLA other than NAMBLA.  liberals are not for taking liberties with those incapable of consent.  THAT is what the argument consisted of.  i don't mind you saying that you think liberals welcome sinners just as much as any good religious person does, but i take great umbrige (sic) with the idea that we have some sort of natural affinity for child molestors, my friend.  that is a whole different ball of yarn, and you are never going to get that one past me, so don't even try.  it was just as upsetting NOW as when you did it.

edit: for the record, i considered that whole discussion a MATTER OF OPINION.  no facts were presented, other than some idiots self identify as liberals (which is meaningless, since some idiots also self identify as conservatives, i am sure you will agree).  you presented your opinion, and defended it.  i presented my opinion, and defended it.  i don't think either of us convinced the other.  but i think BOTH of us defended our points of view quite well, for the record.  i leave it to others to decide who had the most compelling argument.

, before later switching to "well maybe they do, but it doesn't count because of thus and such criteria I just added to the definition of 'liberal'".

oh, bullshit.  you are forgetting what the argument consisted of.  period.

You insisted there was no such thing as "secular religion", until I pointed you to the lengthy Wiki article on the subject.

it is not a lengthy article.  it is two paragraphs.  and it was an intentional oxymoron (the person who coined it was referring to COMMUNISM).  look it up, Virgil

And who can forget your "this Quinnipac poll is junk, but this Quinnipac poll (which I didn't realize was also Quinnipac) is spot on" from back in December. By that time, you'd even come up with a term for people calling BS on your arguments: "gotcha crap". "Stop with the gotcha crap, Virgil," I believe were your exact words.

no, i said they were both junk.  you mistook what i was saying.  i said that one just happened to be more accurate than the other, but they were both junk.  even a broken clock is right twice a day.  and yes, i did say that.

Jim Morrison handed your arguments about nuclear Iran back to you on several occasions, but in fairness I can't recall whether that was a "shaky basis" or a "no basis" situation on your part. It may well have been the former.

You're good with not blue-skying your arguments. Not perfect. Nobody is. As for "lying", I don't think you've ever made a baseless statement you knew was wrong a priori, hence I'll credit you for that. That doesn't seem to be what your row with Richard is about, however.

i never claimed that i was perfect.  only God is perfect.  i am weak, flawed, vile, and stupid.  i make tons of mistakes.  and i am wrong about a LOT of things.  but none of that had ANYTHING to do with my claim.  what i claim is that i can back up what i post.

have i ever failed to do that, Virgil?

answer honestly.

and please forgive me for point by pointing, but you are putting me on trial here, and i had to address that count by count.

So you can break your own rules because you're on trial here?

"Judge, I realize I'm stabbing the bailiff, but I'm on trial here. It just makes sense that we suspend the rules. You know, the ones that I made up and that you begrudgingly agreed to abide by for sake of keeping the peace."

As for the rest: I realize what you're claiming. You're claiming that you don't pull things out of your fanny. Generally speaking (and omitting "secret conditions under which DJ can break his own rules"), you're absolutely right. The five cases I listed are notable exceptions. Three of them also happen to be cases where you've already argued they aren't exceptions but that I didn't (and still don't) accept your arguments as to why. For the NAMBLA and Byron Smith threads in particular, I welcome anyone to read through those threads to see whose synopsis is more accurate.

I didn't include statistically-near-impossible-but-obviously-subjective statements like "Dick Cheney is the most evil man in America not presently incarcerated,"  but you tend to make a lot of those too.

The fact that I could only think of five cases in all the years we've been debating is a credit to your diligence. I can think of at least five times I pulled something out of my hat (with my rationale being "I read this somewhere but I can't remember where", or "this is the only thing that seems reasonable to me") and gotten burned because I was too lazy to check it out. Sometimes it happens. Admitting our errors is part of the growth process.

Anyway, I need another argument with you like I need a hole in the head. I just showed up to take on your "when have I ever..." challenge.

Bonne nuit.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 9, 2015 1:52:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 8, 2015 23:26:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i never claimed that i was perfect.  only God is perfect.  i am weak, flawed, vile, and stupid.  i make tons of mistakes.  and i am wrong about a LOT of things.  but none of that had ANYTHING to do with my claim.  what i claim is that i can back up what i post.

have i ever failed to do that, Virgil?

answer honestly.

and please forgive me for point by pointing, but you are putting me on trial here, and i had to address that count by count.

So you can break your own rules because you're on trial here?

"Judge, I realize I'm stabbing the bailiff, but I'm on trial here. It just makes sense that we suspend the rules. You know, the ones that I made up and that you begrudgingly agreed to abide by for sake of keeping the peace."

As for the rest: I realize what you're claiming. You're claiming that you don't pull things out of your fanny. Generally speaking (and omitting "secret conditions under which DJ can break his own rules"), you're absolutely right. The five cases I listed are notable exceptions. Three of them also happen to be cases where you've already argued they aren't exceptions but that I didn't (and still don't) accept your arguments as to why. For the NAMBLA and Byron Smith threads in particular, I welcome anyone to read through those threads to see whose synopsis is more accurate.

I didn't include statistically-near-impossible-but-obviously-subjective statements like "Dick Cheney is the most evil man in America not presently incarcerated,"  but you tend to make a lot of those too.

The fact that I could only think of five cases in all the years we've been debating is a credit to your diligence. I can think of at least five times I pulled something out of my hat (with my rationale being "I read this somewhere but I can't remember where", or "this is the only thing that seems reasonable to me") and gotten burned because I was too lazy to check it out. Sometimes it happens. Admitting our errors is part of the growth process.

Anyway, I need another argument with you like I need a hole in the head. I just showed up to take on your "when have I ever..." challenge.

Bonne nuit.

my reputation on the board is more important than my reputation with YOU, Virgil.

i don't know who Byron Smith is, Virgil.  if i argued on that thread, it must have been for some other reason other than the one you stated.

as for that NAMBLA discussion, i would also encourage anyone to review that thread.

as to my statement about Cheney, i try to carefully qualify such things as MY OPINION.  but if i didn't in this case, i think that most people will acknowledge that what is evil to one person is bad to another and might be acceptable to a third.  there is no absolute standard for evil, and therefore, it is not a particularly meaningful statement, or one that you would EXPECT me to back up.  although i certainly would be willing to give it a try in the case of Cheney. 

in short, i am not seeing how any of these are examples of me "being unable to back up my posts".  i put everything i had into that NAMBLA argument, which had to have gone on for 20 pages (i doubt i am exaggerating.  it was epic).  to use that as an example of me letting an argument flail in the breeze is absurd, in my book.

i guess i kinda resent that you have never come to MY defense in the way that you came to Richard's on this one- but that's fine.  i am just really tired of being torn down over nothing on this board.

[Deleted]

Virgil's memory at specifics is better than mine. I was thinking about the Quinnipiac Poll one when I first answered "yes"... but was drawing a blank about the specifics of it enough to post more than JUST my "yes".

[djAdvocate]

Jan 9, 2015 2:19:33 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Virgil's memory at specifics is better than mine. I was thinking about the Quinnipiac Poll one when I first answered "yes"... but was drawing a blank about the specifics of it enough to post more than JUST my "yes".

i stand by what i said on that thread.  the earlier Quinnipack result was better, but only because it didn't include Obama. 

public opinion polls on how good or bad a president is are always lousy.  i stated very clearly in that thread WHY.  they are lousy for three reasons:

1)    people are not asked about specific presidents.  they are asked to name presidents, and the results are posted.  therefore, they will only rate the best and worst presidents that THEY REMEMBER.  as has been shown countless times on this board, the American public has terrible knowledge of presidents.  so, when i say that Harding was the worst president in the last century, and one of the three worst ever, you will NEVER find that on a public opinion poll, because....well because people are not really comparing recent presidents against more ancient and more horrible ones.  ditto for great presidents.
2)    people are not given objective standards to judge presidents by.  i think the members of this board are horribly subjective in this respect.  they don't use the same standards for judging Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Harding.  if they did, they would find Harding was by far the worst of that bunch.  and no, i don't think it is fair to have changing standards for changing times.  the best standards are ones that don't change.  i could list some of those standards, but strangely enough, nobody has ever actually asked me to do that.  so, i will wait for someone to do that before i offer it.
3)    people don't have a deep enough knowledge of history even if they DID have the standards to judge presidents by.  how many of Teddy Roosevelt's key proposals did he get through congress during his time in office?  how effective was Kennedy at rallying congress to his proposals?  how well did what Grant proposed actually WORK in practice?  how effective of a leader was Jefferson?  none of that stuff is considered when people are asked "who was the worst president, in your opinion".

so, no- those were all junk polls.  when i said that the earlier one was better because it didn't include Obama, i probably should have used a blinky guy to note my sarcasm, but everything else that i said above was contained in that thread.  so again, i backed up my posts then, and i did so again, now.

not seeing how any of this makes Richard right. 

[djAdvocate]

Virgil- i read the "Byron Smith" thread.  i found the post in question.

i specifically said on about page 11 that i didn't know anything about the discussion, and asked for comments.
that reply was based on something mmhmm said, and it was clearly not serious in tone.  a couple of posts later
i made it clear that i didn't have much fondness for the NRA, so i was just taking a poke at them.  however, i don't
see why you or anyone else would want me to defend a remark which was so obviously sarcastic. 
i am surprised that you even noticed it, because you didn't take me to task at the time, and nobody else did, either.
if you had, i would have simply said i was kidding around. but i think you took me wrong, based on what you said above.
i basically said "this (case) will GIVE the NRA something to bitch about". i was not stating that they had taken a position,
only that they probably would.  the just love commenting on high profile gun cases.

and to strike another of your FIVE off the list, i already pointed out that your "lengthy Wikipedia article" was precisely
half a page consisting of 2 paragraphs.  if you actually READ it, you will discover that the phrase "secular religion" was
an oxymoron used to sarcastically deride COMMUNISM.  so, no, i really don't think it is something that exists.  i asked
YOU the defend it at the time, and i felt you were unable to do so, so that one is yours, not mine.

that leaves the other three.  the Quinnipack thing, was ALSO kinda tongue
in cheek, and discussed in detail, above.  then we have the NAMBLA thread.

i think by the time we were done with that, pretty much the entire board was annoyed with us, but i feel i defended my
OPINION on that about as well as i could, and i stand behind every word of it.

lastly, there was the Iran discussion.  i have mixed feelings about Iran, because one of my best friends was an expat
from there, and very proud of his country.  but i have not followed events there as carefully as i should, and i think i
missed some current events when i spoke in that discussion.  i meant to go back and correct a few things, but by then
Jim had disappeared.  this was one of those times where my thoughts needed revising based on new information which
i got AFTER the discussion, and i believe that a genuine mistake was made there, but i can't recall what it was, now.

please let me know if you think i have failed to back up anything else i have posted.  by backing stuff up, i get the chance
to review it, and sometimes, like with the Iran post, there is something new to learn, and that is why i am here.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Would you two please take your differences outside (of this thread). Thank you.

[Deleted]

Jan 9, 2015 8:13:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Would you two please take your differences outside (of this thread). Thank you.

 If you want your thread to get back on topic just type the word ABORTION

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 9, 2015 2:51:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Virgil- i read the "Byron Smith" thread.  i found the post in question.

i specifically said on about page 11 that i didn't know anything about the discussion, and asked for comments.
that reply was based on something mmhmm said, and it was clearly not serious in tone.  a couple of posts later
i made it clear that i didn't have much fondness for the NRA, so i was just taking a poke at them.  however, i don't
see why you or anyone else would want me to defend a remark which was so obviously sarcastic. 
i am surprised that you even noticed it, because you didn't take me to task at the time, and nobody else did, either.
if you had, i would have simply said i was kidding around. but i think you took me wrong, based on what you said above.
i basically said "this (case) will GIVE the NRA something to bitch about". i was not stating that they had taken a position,
only that they probably would.  the just love commenting on high profile gun cases.

and to strike another of your FIVE off the list, i already pointed out that your "lengthy Wikipedia article" was precisely
half a page consisting of 2 paragraphs.  if you actually READ it, you will discover that the phrase "secular religion" was
an oxymoron used to sarcastically deride COMMUNISM.  so, no, i really don't think it is something that exists.  i asked
YOU the defend it at the time, and i felt you were unable to do so, so that one is yours, not mine.

that leaves the other three.  the Quinnipack thing, was ALSO kinda tongue
in cheek, and discussed in detail, above.  then we have the NAMBLA thread.

i think by the time we were done with that, pretty much the entire board was annoyed with us, but i feel i defended my
OPINION on that about as well as i could, and i stand behind every word of it.

lastly, there was the Iran discussion.  i have mixed feelings about Iran, because one of my best friends was an expat
from there, and very proud of his country.  but i have not followed events there as carefully as i should, and i think i
missed some current events when i spoke in that discussion.  i meant to go back and correct a few things, but by then
Jim had disappeared.  this was one of those times where my thoughts needed revising based on new information which
i got AFTER the discussion, and i believe that a genuine mistake was made there, but i can't recall what it was, now.

please let me know if you think i have failed to back up anything else i have posted.  by backing stuff up, i get the chance
to review it, and sometimes, like with the Iran post, there is something new to learn, and that is why i am here.

These are all post hoc justifications for things you've said. Anybody can come up with a post hoc justification. Anybody can pull an argument out of their fanny and then later come up with something, even something obviously contrived, to save face.

These are five cases where I'm convinced you initially jumped the gun.

In the Byron Smith thread, you wanted to take a pot shot at the NRA getting to "bitch about" the NRA conviction. But the NRA hadn't touched the case, and in terms of the tense you used ("give"), I point out that neither would it go on to do so. "Oh, that was sarcasm." No, it was you taking a pot shot at the NRA's stance on SYG without anything backing it up.

Regarding "secular religion", your initial criticism wasn't that it's a derision of communism; you claimed it was an oxymoron. You obviously hadn't bothered to look up what the term meant, and the Wiki article most certainly does not characterize it as an oxymoron (nor, for that matter, does it employ sarcasm, or limit the term to communism). It also links to numerous non-oxymoronic topics such as "Nontheistic religions", "Spiritual but not religious", etc.  "But it is an oxymoron because..." Not the point. You jumped the gun. It was obvious.

In the Quinnipac poll case, you've already vehemently denied jumping the gun and come up with your contrived "what I meant was...", but to Richard, myself, and I'm guessing anybody else reading that thread, it was obvious that you wanted to dismiss an anti-Obama poll out of hand and you did. When an anti-Bush poll came up and you happily jumped in with "partisan rubbish. but closer to the mark than the Quinnipack poll.", you then had to eat your words because the only thing closer to the mark was your closet favouritism of Pres. Obama. "What I meant was that all polls are... and... and... Quinnipac..."  Yeah, right.

Regarding the Iran thread (and your posts in general) there are numerous instances of where you've posted an incorrect stat but then quickly corrected yourself. These technically count as "jumping the gun", but I'm not including them because they still demonstrate vigilance in posting. Plus, I can sympathize with wanting to get a post written and "out there" while the discussion is hot, postponing fact checks until a few minutes later. I do it quite often. In the Iran thread, the "jump the gun" case I recall had something to do with your assertion that Ahmadinejad ran Iran, and Jim had to point out to you that it was the Ayatollah running Iran. Maybe it was a I-would-have-eventually-corrected-myself case, but Jim caught it before you did. I'm fuzzy on this one and I don't want to look it up, hence I'll strike it off the list.

In the NAMBLA thread your argument mutated more than the Ninja Turtles, but initially it was "How dare you call these men liberal!". It was a terrible argument, which is why it later mutated into something you could defend. I didn't buy your mutated arguments either, but that's beside the point. You initially tripped over yourself in your haste to defend the sacredness of liberalism. You jumped the gun.

I'm not saying that you left any of these flapping in the breeze. Indeed you invested tremendous effort into molding, revising, tweaking, and defending your positions after jumping the gun. If you're claiming that you've never abandoned an argument, I can vouch that I've never seen you abandon an argument (excepting a few cases where you've claimed you're tired/frustrated and asked posters to stop addressing you, which I'll consider exhaustion rather than abandonment). What I'm talking about here is cases where you came out with a baseless argument, didn't correct yourself, and then later contrived an explanation or mutated your argument when caught (which anybody, including Alex Jones, Mitt Romney, and Jonathan Gruber, can do with remarkable ease). I didn't believe them, and in these four cases the evidence is such that I don't believe you.

I'm not going to go digging around for other instances. I have better things to do.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 9, 2015 8:13:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Would you two please take your differences outside (of this thread). Thank you.

Go draw a picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and stand in the middle of Paris why don't you?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 9, 2015 9:24:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 9, 2015 2:51:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Virgil- i read the "Byron Smith" thread.  i found the post in question.

i specifically said on about page 11 that i didn't know anything about the discussion, and asked for comments.
that reply was based on something mmhmm said, and it was clearly not serious in tone.  a couple of posts later
i made it clear that i didn't have much fondness for the NRA, so i was just taking a poke at them.  however, i don't
see why you or anyone else would want me to defend a remark which was so obviously sarcastic. 
i am surprised that you even noticed it, because you didn't take me to task at the time, and nobody else did, either.
if you had, i would have simply said i was kidding around. but i think you took me wrong, based on what you said above.
i basically said "this (case) will GIVE the NRA something to bitch about". i was not stating that they had taken a position,
only that they probably would.  the just love commenting on high profile gun cases.

and to strike another of your FIVE off the list, i already pointed out that your "lengthy Wikipedia article" was precisely
half a page consisting of 2 paragraphs.  if you actually READ it, you will discover that the phrase "secular religion" was
an oxymoron used to sarcastically deride COMMUNISM.  so, no, i really don't think it is something that exists.  i asked
YOU the defend it at the time, and i felt you were unable to do so, so that one is yours, not mine.

that leaves the other three.  the Quinnipack thing, was ALSO kinda tongue
in cheek, and discussed in detail, above.  then we have the NAMBLA thread.

i think by the time we were done with that, pretty much the entire board was annoyed with us, but i feel i defended my
OPINION on that about as well as i could, and i stand behind every word of it.

lastly, there was the Iran discussion.  i have mixed feelings about Iran, because one of my best friends was an expat
from there, and very proud of his country.  but i have not followed events there as carefully as i should, and i think i
missed some current events when i spoke in that discussion.  i meant to go back and correct a few things, but by then
Jim had disappeared.  this was one of those times where my thoughts needed revising based on new information which
i got AFTER the discussion, and i believe that a genuine mistake was made there, but i can't recall what it was, now.

please let me know if you think i have failed to back up anything else i have posted.  by backing stuff up, i get the chance
to review it, and sometimes, like with the Iran post, there is something new to learn, and that is why i am here.

These are all post hoc justifications for things you've said. Anybody can come up with a post hoc justification. Anybody can pull an argument out of their fanny and then later come up with something, even something obviously contrived, to save face.

These are five cases where I'm convinced you initially jumped the gun.

In the Byron Smith thread, you wanted to take a pot shot at the NRA getting to "bitch about" the NRA conviction. But the NRA hadn't touched the case, and in terms of the tense you used ("give"), I point out that neither would it go on to do so. "Oh, that was sarcasm." No, it was you taking a pot shot at the NRA's stance on SYG without anything backing it up.

Regarding "secular religion", your initial criticism wasn't that it's a derision of communism; you claimed it was an oxymoron. You obviously hadn't bothered to look up what the term meant, and the Wiki article most certainly does not characterize it as an oxymoron (nor, for that matter, does it employ sarcasm, or limit the term to communism). It also links to numerous non-oxymoronic topics such as "Nontheistic religions", "Spiritual but not religious", etc.  "But it is an oxymoron because..." Not the point. You jumped the gun. It was obvious.

In the Quinnipac poll case, you've already vehemently denied jumping the gun and come up with your contrived "what I meant was...", but to Richard, myself, and I'm guessing anybody else reading that thread, it was obvious that you wanted to dismiss an anti-Obama poll out of hand and you did. When an anti-Bush poll came up and you happily jumped in with "partisan rubbish. but closer to the mark than the Quinnipack poll.", you then had to eat your words because the only thing closer to the mark was your closet favouritism of Pres. Obama. "What I meant was that all polls are... and... and... Quinnipac..."  Yeah, right.

Regarding the Iran thread (and your posts in general) there are numerous instances of where you've posted an incorrect stat but then quickly corrected yourself. These technically count as "jumping the gun", but I'm not including them because they still demonstrate vigilance in posting. Plus, I can sympathize with wanting to get a post written and "out there" while the discussion is hot, postponing fact checks until a few minutes later. I do it quite often. In the Iran thread, the "jump the gun" case I recall had something to do with your assertion that Ahmadinejad ran Iran, and Jim had to point out to you that it was the Ayatollah running Iran. Maybe it was a I-would-have-eventually-corrected-myself case, but Jim caught it before you did. I'm fuzzy on this one and I don't want to look it up, hence I'll strike it off the list.

In the NAMBLA thread your argument mutated more than the Ninja Turtles, but initially it was "How dare you call these men liberal!". It was a terrible argument, which is why it later mutated into something you could defend. I didn't buy your mutated arguments either, but that's beside the point. You initially tripped over yourself in your haste to defend the sacredness of liberalism. You jumped the gun.

I'm not saying that you left any of these flapping in the breeze. Indeed you invested tremendous effort into molding, revising, tweaking, and defending your positions after jumping the gun. If you're claiming that you've never abandoned an argument, I can vouch that I've never seen you abandon an argument (excepting a few cases where you've claimed you're tired/frustrated and asked posters to stop addressing you, which I'll consider exhaustion rather than abandonment). What I'm talking about here is cases where you came out with a baseless argument, didn't correct yourself, and then later contrived an explanation or mutated your argument when caught (which anybody, including Alex Jones, Mitt Romney, and Jonathan Gruber, can do with remarkable ease). I didn't believe them, and in these four cases the evidence is such that I don't believe you.

I'm not going to go digging around for other instances. I have better things to do.

1)    that is one possibility.  the other is that you are prejudging.  you basically assume that i have jumped the gun, and then you set out to prove it.  i would posit that has to do more with YOU than it does with ME.  for whatever reason, you seem disposed to concluding that anything that doesn't fit into your worldview is an ass pull.

2)    on the Byron Smith thread, i was joking around.  i take pot shots whenever i feel like it, as do most posters here.  i was not making any CLAIMS about the NRA.  i was mocking them as an institution.  you didn't like it, but oddly you waited months to take me to task for it.  see point #1.

3)    no, Virgil, not just my initial criticism, but ALL SUBSEQUENT criticisms of "secular religion" claim that it is an oxymoron.  that is because it IS an oxymoron.  secular means "without religion".  it is the most classic example of an oxymoron that i have ever seen, and yet you still claim to think it is real.  the longer you persist in this argument, the sillier you look, Virgil.

4)    see #1.  you assumed that i had screwed up, and you have never let up on me.  candidly, i think it is funny that you are so stuck on it.  you must have poured yourself a tall glass of carrot juice or whatever it is you drink in celebration.  hilarious.

5)    i do indeed reference my sources when i post threads, and make small corrections.  that is because i want to get the IDEA down before i forget it.  if you don't like the way i work, that's fine.  but i often find a more elegant way of saying things, for example, that didn't occur to me initially.  if you want to hold that against me, i can live with that, because i am not going to change it.

but thanks, Virgil.  this has been very enlightening.  you are disposed to thinking that i talk extemporaneously without factual support.  that is false.  i rarely even comment when i am unaware of the subject.  the Byron Smith thread was a rare exception, but the accusation you are making about me "jumping the gun" with the NRA is totally false.  i wasn't commenting on something THEY HAD SAID.  i was just poking fun at them.  i will give you another example right now:

"Virgil will probably not accept anything i have written here, having already concluded he is right".  

this is not a statement of something YOU HAVE DONE.  it is a statement of something you are LIKELY to do.

thanks for the credit, where given.  but now, i have to go.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 9, 2015 8:13:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Would you two please take your differences outside (of this thread). Thank you.

candidly, i think this is a complete waste of time, Paul.  but i will defend myself, nonetheless.  perhaps some good will come of it.  but probably not.

[Virgil Showlion]

I think you should quit while you're ahead.

Case in point: it's now obvious that you haven't looked at the many definitions of the word "secular". Yes, "non-religious" is one definition. You'll note numerous definitions, including the very first, that define the term more broadly. "Worldly rather than spiritual." is precisely the sense that the many philosophers, ideologues, etc. mentioned by the Wikipedia article are using the term.

How did I know that the term has more definitions than simply "non-religious"? Because I've seen it used in blatantly non-religious contexts. A secular bear market, for example, and secular variation. At this point I'm going to reasonably presume that if you were aware of these definitions, you'd have at least acknowledged their existence by now. You haven't, ergo I conclude that you didn't bother to look the term up. You were too busy telling me how silly I look.

Step #2: Your defence will now mutate to "But... but... Jim wasn't using the term in that sense..." or "There is no such thing as a 'worldly religion'..." or "When I said 'oxymoron', I meant that we can't juxtapose 'religion' with the most commonly accepted definition of 'secular'..." or maybe something new and creative. The "Wikipedia article was being sarcastic." defence was a bold new approach. See if you can top that. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I know I won't be disappointed, since you'd rather chew glass than admit this whole argument was brought about by your failure to look up the word "secular".

You've astutely pointed out that whatever explanation you come up with won't alter my conclusion, but we're not the only two people reading this thread. At least... I think so.

Finally, how about a bonus "quit while you're ahead" point? This whole gripe about definitions has reminded me that I took your definition of "peruse" as gospel and got burned by it. You insisted it meant "to read or examine carefully" and that the common sense in which people use the word is incorrect. I'll dig up your exact words if you dispute having said that. But it turns out the word is a contranym, and sure enough, there's "To look over casually; to skim." and "to browse or read through in a leisurely way" right there in the list of definitions. Hence I got to look like a fool (in front of my Mom, in this case) for not checking up on that bit of trivia I got from DJ.

Some people, myself included, do take what we hear and learn on these boards out into the real world. I've parroted a lot of the stuff that looked reasonable to me on the board for sake of not having enough time to dig through and verify it all. Sometimes you just have to trust the source. Once it's out there, a fat lot of good these "what I meant to say was..." revisions are to anyone.

[The Captain]

Jan 9, 2015 8:41:23 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Jan 9, 2015 8:13:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Would you two please take your differences outside (of this thread). Thank you.

 If you want your thread to get back on topic just type the word ABORTION

I'll probably get in trouble for saying this but damn that was funny!

[djAdvocate]

Jan 9, 2015 14:28:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I think you should quit while you're ahead.

Case in point: it's now obvious that you haven't looked at the many definitions of the word "secular". Yes, "non-religious" is one definition. You'll note numerous definitions, including the very first, that define the term more broadly. "Worldly rather than spiritual." is precisely the sense that the many philosophers, ideologues, etc. mentioned by the Wikipedia article are using the term.

i used dictionary.com
there were only three definitions.
two of them were adjectives.
both of the adjectives had the same meaning = not religious.

but i am not arguing semantics, this time.  i posted a thread on this subject, and we will see what everyone says.

PS- i have looked at the Wiki page twice in the last (24) hours, and i am not going to look at it again.  just letting you know.

[djAdvocate]

i would like you to change the title to "the all things djpolldancer thread".

tyia