DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on September 11, 2015, 01:53:36 AM
-
Oblather cool-aide drinkers best avoid being exposed to such stark truth....you've been warned (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o9Jb3i_ABM)
-
O'Reilly is a simplistic asshole that knows nothing besides shooting off his mouth.
If it were not for Fox, he;d be out of work. No one else would hire such a fool.
-
LOL.....you were warned. We can always count on you to reinforce the the point being made by demonstrating anything and everything to avoid refuting his talking points, and instead, your standard litany of derogatory insults. Bravo
-
The Iran deal is better than the alternative, which is no deal at all.
I have never read anything by the stupid O'Reilly that made any sense at all, so I am not going to waste my time reading it, just as I do not stop to sniff every turd that a dog poops out in the street.
O;Reilly is King of the Simpletons.
-
In reality, NO Deal meant the previous deal & SANCTIONS remained in place...in other words, no deal was better than the present "deal"
The present "deal" provides both $$$$$ & Credibility to any nuclear program, that wouldn't have occured under the above NO deal scenario
The present "deal" broke EVERY ONE of the pledges that Obama made as far as what was required for Iran to adhere to
The present "deal" was was NOT supported by either Congress OR the American people, and now puts into motion, imminent war in the region, sooner than later
The fact you demonstrate an insidious inability to debate and refute the points being made, only to launch into repetative grammar school insults & irationalizations as to why you can't, is all anyone needs to read to see how much more valid the original point being made was.
Not to mention, there was nothing to "read" in the link provided. You didn't even bother to look. You saw O-Reilly, and just automatically dismissed whatever it was. So, when he talks about how he supports the minimum wage hikes, we should just dismiss him out of hand, right??
-
I have no obligation to read the crap you ratbag rightwingers post. It is like requiring me to sniff every turn on the trail.
Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh are also turds on the trail I do not deign to sniff.
I usually read CU4's and sir's nonsense only because very occasionally it is somewhat more originaln the usual rightwing drivel: think of turds carrying tiny umbrellas or wearing beanies.
It is nearly all garbage, and in the case of O'Reilly, it is never anything even remotely worth the bother.
Raising the minimum wage is so obvioulsy what should be done that it matters not whether O'Reailly supports it or not.
-
Except for the massive negaitve impact it would have on our economy, that's already arguably the worst recovery from every other previous downturn we've had in this country. I've lost count of how many millions are simply no longer even looking for a job...highest on record. Point being the "drivel" we post apparently can't even be bothered to be refuted by the likes of you. How convenient
-
O'Riley is very sure of himself but I think he is wrong now and then.
He is wrong about the miniwage and he was wrong about gas prices.
But when he is right , he is right by dint of research and consideration, he isn't relying on instinct.
-
Exactly. For those that just want to dismiss him without even examining his conclusions, merely demonstrate how weak their position must be
-
If were to totally destroy O'Reilly's arguments, no one would know except the few people that read what I wrote, and you would claim that I was entirely wrong, wrong, wrong.
So why bother? It makes no difference. Why waste my time? It is like talking to a deaf mute or a cat.
-
You wouldn't because you can't. You've pulled that lame ass excuse countless times..."I'd refute it, but no one would pay attention", or no one would care, or a waste of time, or whatever. How convenient in this, a debate forum, where you're apparently above the need to debate your position, or debunk someone else's. And how unfortunate the idea that a visitor might be passing thru, taking a view into this, a debate forum, and being a left leaning moderate, potentially poised to more actively support liberal causes, but witnesses your repetitive transparent inability to support that side of the argument or debunk something posted by the likes of me. Just your say so
You see, the difference between you & I, in this, a debate forum, outside of an exponential higher level of objectivity from my standpoint, is that when you're wrong, its pointed out how, where, and why. You back up nothing, but simply more because you said so. This debate forum isn't just me. You could pretend you're trying to debate Plane, who is far superior to me in objectivity and tolerance. But that would require effort....and you're more likely to be demonstrated how erroneous your position is by a far more objective bystander in him....which I guess is why you have to try and use me as your go-to demonstration of how utterly void your positions find themselves. The problem is, it doesn't change the fact, how all you've got going in trying to refute what O'Reilly concluded is your insults & intellectual laziness. Pity
-
I am not going to read O'Reilly's drivel.
It is like asking me to sniff a turd.
-
And yet you read our drivel daily. Hypocrisy? Skipped over the part, yet again, that there was nothing to read either, in the link provided. You could have given your eyes a rest from something so apparently nasty & damaging to the senses, and simply exercised a few neurons
The only "turd" here is you expanding all this energy, in giving all these ridiculous excuses at what you just can't be bothered with, in front of all to see, when you could have used half as much energy trying to refute the point(s) O'Reilly had made
-
If were to totally destroy O'Reilly's arguments, no one would know except the few people that read what I wrote, and you would claim that I was entirely wrong, wrong, wrong.
So why bother? It makes no difference. Why waste my time? It is like talking to a deaf mute or a cat.
This is actually a good question.
Why do I want to read stuff I totally disagree with?
Do I enjoy the interaction with persons and the process so much that I am content with the argument by itself ?
Yes , I guess I am.
Of course I am certain I am right , and aware that some people do not think so.
I don't want my circle to exclude everyone that can't understand how right I am.
Too small a circle , and I would never learn anything new.
Argument without conclusion is a fruitful thing even though the fruit is never persuading someone to reverse themselves, that might be the nominal purpose but it isn't the fruit that tree bears very often , what you do get plenty of is an insight to a Point of View that you would not find by yourself.
It might be nice to actually persuade someone out of the rut that contained their thinking.
But I better be ready with a better rut to offer in that rare event.
-
xkcd
pretty good
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/i_could_care_less.png)
-
My point is that I know what O'Reilly will say, and how he will say it, and is will be just garbage. Reading O'Reilly is like sniffing a turd, in quest of the odor of roses in bloom. A totally worthless exercise.
And no argument, no matter how logical or factual it is, would evoke more than yet another incredible snide remark from sirs, who is incapable of rational thought and even original rhetoric.
No one knows what will happen with regard to Iran, its elusive and nonexistent nukes and how the US will react. All we know is that Netanyahu is either pissed off or pretending to be pissed off, and a swarm of Republicans, hoping for fat donations from rich fanatical Zionists, will make up all manner of shit as they parrot Netanyahu.
-
And no argument, no matter how logical or factual it is, would evoke more than yet another incredible snide remark from sirs, who is incapable of rational thought and even original rhetoric.
.
What I was writing was not only for the benefit of Sirs , I think you have a similar need to look around the corner.
This is not a plea to change your POV.
It is a plea for reciprocity , so it should naturally be two handled.
It may seem as if I am asking to give more than is due, but I am actually asking every possible POV to respect the others. This will always seem like a heavy load to everyone involved.
A strong preference for ones own POV is to be expected, and perhaps thus tolerated for the sake of reciprocity.
-
And no argument, no matter how logical or factual it is, .....
Hey a video on this topic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rE3j_RHkqJc
-
That is a really clever video. That seems to be exactly how it works. Except it does not get around to the Hegelian dialectic by which every idea provokes an opposing idea and then the two together merge inot a new idea,m after the formula action --> reaction--> syntheses then the synthesis becomes the next action, and the process repeats itself. There is no perfect state, because the world is in a constant state of change.
I do not think that the Iran deal will result in war. Nor do I believe that it will cause Israel to vanish. The exact results are not known because unexpected developments will queer any process people currently think will occur.
I have seen and heard and read enough of O'Reilly to know that he is an irritable lightweight that is totally predictable. Perhaps this is because they pay him to say the crap he says, or perhaps he is just so stupid he believes it, but the truth it, it is still crap, always has been crap and will always be crap.
-
Well then....I guess it's good to know that what he says in support of the minimum wage & corporate corruption is all crap
-
At no point did I say that I disagreed with every possible idea that O'reilly might come up with.
I only said that I have had enough experience reading his drivel to refrain from wasting my time reading it any longer. The same is true of Coulter.
Palin and Trump are entertaining as studies in mental derangement, but O-Reilly and Coulter are merely not worth reading.
-
You said he was full of crap.....no need to read or listen to anything he says. So what he says in supporting it, must, by your logic, also be crap. So which is it?
-
And no argument, no matter how logical or factual it is, would evoke more than yet another incredible snide remark from sirs, who is incapable of rational thought and even original rhetoric.
When are you going to grasp that nothing said here, has anything to do with me. Your comments and opinions have squat to do with any expectation of changing my POV, so why lay claim to using that as an excuse for failing to support your POV?? I see that your projection is thick with the notion of snide remarks & incapable of rational thought. Couldn't have described the vast majority of what you post, any better. The point is, its transparent in your lack of ability to support claims your making or refuting points someone else is making, by claiming how it makes no difference if you were to try. By NOT trying, you reinforce everything everyone else IS saying.
It's not about me, or my grasp of logic or debate. It's all about what YOU, a supposed learner-ed Professor, can demonstrate, as it relates to logic and debate. So far, it's still severely wanting.
The good news is, that isn't set in stone. YOU, can make the effort to better demonstrate & highlight your POV. YOU, can better demonstrate an ability to refute concepts O'Reilly is making. And no manner of what I don't agree with can change that, since its not and never has been about me. It's all about what YOU can deliver. Civil substantive debate? Or more standard derogatory insults & excuses as to why you can't be bothered to try.
Again, it's not about me, (or Plane, of Cu4, or anyone one else for that matter), and why we might not agree with what you claim. This is all you, and how you can demonstrate HOW, you are right in your claims, beyond just your say so
-
Your reasoning is defective, mine is clearly sane.
-
Your opinion of my reasoning is irrelevent, to the point being made. Civil substantive debate? Or more standard derogatory insults & excuses as to why you can't be bothered to try? It's your road