is water free

[pervy_sage]

i stated early on exactly what i thought your position was. you denied it, then a week later restated exactly what i said, only in your own words when it suited your argument for the moment. go back read from the beginning. and no, it has nothing to do with you being a murderer. its amazing how you dont understand the few good men reference (which again, let me just get out of the way now, is a path you started, not me). lets just say i may not be able to handle the truth according to you. i'll lay that aside for now and just say i'd rather be tom cruise in that argument any day.

I do understand the reference, quite well, and how you have equated my behavior with that character. If I chose to use a reference for dramatic flair of my point, it is on my terms. You associated what you perceived as my behavior to the behavior of the character directly, thus associating my behavior with that of a murderer. You don't get that so it is pointless to argue. Don't call a red ball on me and think I'm gonna lie down though.

The worst I ever remotely associated you with (and never directly) is Bill Reilly whom I respect and would love to debate and learn from, but you definitely aren't acting anything like Bill Reilly.

If you can't take a little smack talk during the game, you shouldn't be playing. You certainly have demonstrated you are an amateur when it comes to it as you jumped the line by a mile. Still lmao at the spelling thing.... spelling...HA!

Next point...

I denied nothing. And now we are back to context which you love so much. Again, if you had agreed from the onset concerning frame of reference and context, you would have gotten to your answer sooner rather than playing some self gratifying game which was only evident to you.

I wasn't denying you some hidden truth about myself, I was attempting to stay within a context everyone here would likely understand, that of rule of law and the constitution. If I am guilty of anything, it is misinterpreting your ambiguous intentions for context, which you repeatedly refused to agree upon and denied were relevant. Obviously context is relevant. Once you insisted on a universal context, then it was easy for me to derive a defining statement, develop an argument and come to a logical conclusion as to the level of its veracity (you know, thinking) the results of which apparently scared you. Sorry for that. Didn't mean to damage your tender brain.


Try being the irresistible force for a change rather than the immovable object. You get to see so much more of the world.

[tdoczi]

Once you insisted on a universal context, then it was easy for me to derive a defining statement, develop an argument and come to a logical conclusion as to the level of its veracity (you know, thinking) the results of which apparently scared you. Sorry for that. Didn't mean to damage your tender brain.

you really think you said something to me that ive never heard before dont you? thats probably the most priceless part, especially considering i told you what you were before you told me, misplaced context or not.

its like if i said "hey, your eyes are green" and you said "no theyre not." later on you go "my eyes are green." i go "ha! see, i knew it!" and you say... "well, see, in this LIGHT they are green, before in a different light they werent." ok fine, fair enough, i think its silly, but whatever. the really best part though is you also then say "i bet you never imagined anyone could have green eyes, did you?"

[pervy_sage]

you really think you said something to me that ive never heard before dont you? thats probably the most priceless part, especially considering i told you what you were before you told me, misplaced context or not.

its like if i said "hey, your eyes are green" and you said "no theyre not." later on you go "my eyes are green." i go "ha! see, i knew it!" and you say... "well, see, in this LIGHT they are green, before in a different light they werent." ok fine, fair enough, i think its silly, but whatever. the really best part though is you also then say "i bet you never imagined anyone could have green eyes, did you?"

I don't really know anything about you, nor care to, nor do you really know anything about me, because there is no means to verify whether either of us has been honest. Just a tiny fact. Even if I say my eyes are green, you can't see them. You may have told me what you thought I was (I still haven't found that actual statement yet), but that is irrelevant as no means of verification exist. I might be a really good liar. I might be telling you what you want to hear to expose your weak points and crappy logic (not hard to do it seems).

Since you work from the context that context is irrelevant, there can be no debate between us, so everything we've attempted to debate relative to each other is pointless. Our arguments can only stand within themselves.

And you still are demonstrating (truthfully or not) that you don't have a grasp on the meaning of intrinsic. I know it's a tough one, but you'll get it sooner or later.

[tdoczi]

I don't really know anything about you, nor care to, nor do you really know anything about me, because there is no means to verify whether either of us has been honest. Just a tiny fact. Even if I say my eyes are green, you can't see them. You may have told me what you thought I was (I still haven't found that actual statement yet), but that is irrelevant as no means of verification exist. I might be a really good liar. I might be telling you what you want to hear to expose your weak points and crappy logic (not hard to do it seems).

Since you work from the context that context is irrelevant, there can be no debate between us, so everything we've attempted to debate relative to each other is pointless. Our arguments can only stand within themselves.

And you still are demonstrating (truthfully or not) that you don't have a grasp on the meaning of intrinsic. I know it's a tough one, but you'll get it sooner or later.

perhaps, but inability to process metaphor does seem to be intrinsic to you.

[pervy_sage]

[QUOTE=tdoczi;1325027]... i told you what you were before you told me, misplaced context or not. /QUOTE]


And there's another thing, what the hell does you thinking you know what I am have to do with the debate in the first place? All you did is jerk things around until it got to were it would inevitably get to regardless, but then suddenly it becomes about me and what you think I am? Why? Because you lost the debate? I thought we were debating water, not your irrelevant perception of my character.

I still think you are a troll, but that had no bearing on my actual arguments, just on the sidebar jabbing which I did my best to keep distinctly separate.

What was your point relative to the OP debate again? My point was crystal clear, and can follow it all the way back to ground zero if you'd like. You jumped the shark from insulting my off handed anecdote right out of the gate to almost making a point to attempting to expose me as...whatever it was you thought you were exposing me as. You still haven't admitted to what that was. I know there's a word out there you are itching to label me with. Go on say it.

Please clarify for the public what you were trying to accomplish again? Obviously you feel you succeeded.

When he decides to give his usual non-answer, can someone else impartially please fill me in if you've figured it out?

[pervy_sage]

perhaps, but inability to process metaphor does seem to be intrinsic to you.

Very good...maybe tomorrow we'll work on your logic.

[tdoczi]

[QUOTE=pervy_sage;1325056]

... i told you what you were before you told me, misplaced context or not. /QUOTE]


And there's another thing, what the hell does you thinking you know what I am have to do with the debate in the first place? All you did is jerk things around until it got to were it would inevitably get to regardless, but then suddenly it becomes about me and what you think I am? Why? Because you lost the debate? I thought we were debating water, not your irrelevant perception of my character.

I still think you are a troll, but that had no bearing on my actual arguments, just on the sidebar jabbing which I did my best to keep distinctly separate.

What was your point relative to the OP debate again? My point was crystal clear, and can follow it all the way back to ground zero if you'd like. You jumped the shark from insulting my off handed anecdote right out of the gate to almost making a point to attempting to expose me as...whatever it was you thought you were exposing me as. You still haven't admitted to what that was. I know there's a word out there you are itching to label me with. Go on say it.

Please clarify for the public what you were trying to accomplish again? Obviously you feel you succeeded.

When he decides to give his usual non-answer, can someone else impartially please fill me in if you've figured it out?

on this youve got me, my point is not nor ever was relative to anything to do with the OP. you decided it was ok to bash a school of thought you figured no one who was listening would care if you bashed. i was listening. i cared. i got you to state plainly your true colors. the end.

[pervy_sage]

its like if i said "hey, your eyes are green" and you said "no theyre not." later on you go "my eyes are green." i go "ha! see, i knew it!" and you say... "well, see, in this LIGHT they are green, before in a different light they werent." ok fine, fair enough, i think its silly, but whatever. the really best part though is you also then say "i bet you never imagined anyone could have green eyes, did you?"

Well, from my perspective, the metaphor is more like, "hey your eyes are green." I say, yeah, they look green because you are wearing green tinted glasses. They actually aren't. Take them off and then tell me what color they are." And you say, "No, that is irrelevant." And I say, ok, in that context, my eyes are green." And you get to say "ha, see I knew it, they are green." At which point I stare at you funny.

[tdoczi]

Well, from my perspective, the metaphor is more like, "hey your eyes are green." I say, yeah, they look green because you are wearing green tinted glasses. They actually aren't. Take them off and then tell me what color they are." And you say, "No, that is irrelevant." And I say, ok, in that context, my eyes are green." And you get to say "ha, see I knew it, they are green." At which point I stare at you funny.

but you left out the part where you then tell me how earth shattering it must be for me to realize a person can have green eyes, which was the point of my metaphor. i was conceding the part about why your eyes were not green and then later green, as it was not the point i was making.

again, with that intrinsic difficulty of yours.

[pervy_sage]

[QUOTE=tdoczi:1325060]

... i told you what you were before you told me, misplaced context or not. /QUOTE]


And there's another thing, what the hell does you thinking you know what I am have to do with the debate in the first place? All you did is jerk things around until it got to were it would inevitably get to regardless, but then suddenly it becomes about me and what you think I am? Why? Because you lost the debate? I thought we were debating water, not your irrelevant perception of my character.

I still think you are a troll, but that had no bearing on my actual arguments, just on the sidebar jabbing which I did my best to keep distinctly separate.

What was your point relative to the OP debate again? My point was crystal clear, and can follow it all the way back to ground zero if you'd like. You jumped the shark from insulting my off handed anecdote right out of the gate to almost making a point to attempting to expose me as...whatever it was you thought you were exposing me as. You still haven't admitted to what that was. I know there's a word out there you are itching to label me with. Go on say it.

Please clarify for the public what you were trying to accomplish again? Obviously you feel you succeeded.

When he decides to give his usual non-answer, can someone else impartially please fill me in if you've figured it out?

on this youve got me, my point is not nor ever was relative to anything to do with the OP. you decided it was ok to bash a school of thought you figured no one who was listening would care if you bashed. i was listening. i cared. i got you to state plainly your true colors. the end.

So it was personal and irrelevant to the debate.

Ok. That I can live with. Next time say that. Don't spoil a good debate. Clear the air first, then have at it.

I apologize for being insensitve to the ideals of the libertarians. I still disagree with some of the idealogy, but respect it far more than other ideologies currently in power.

[tdoczi]

[QUOTE=pervy_sage;1325066]

So it was personal and irrelevant to the debate.

Ok. That I can live with. Next time say that. Don't spoil a good debate. Clear the air first, then have at it.

I apologize for being insensitve to the ideals of the libertarians. I still disagree with some of the idealogy, but respect it far more than other ideologies currently in power.

no, it wasnt personal (as you correctly pointed out, we dont know each other) and i tried my best to at least do it within the relevant context.

[lunchbx]

Is water free? If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

[rocketsocks]

perhaps, but inability to process metaphor does seem to be intrinsic to you.

Very good...maybe tomorrow we'll work on your logic.

This gave me a Chuckle, what a great way to start my day....right on men! nice to see some progress. Happy Friday


"Hey bar tend"

"what'll it be stranger"?

"I'll have a pervey sage with a dash of tdoczi"

"never heard of it", what's in it"?

"I think it starts with water, but I can't be sure"

" Wa Water!....we don't do water"

"ok...skip the water" prolly don't need that anyway

[pervy_sage]

[QUOTE=tdoczi:1325071]

So it was personal and irrelevant to the debate.

Ok. That I can live with. Next time say that. Don't spoil a good debate. Clear the air first, then have at it.

I apologize for being insensitve to the ideals of the libertarians. I still disagree with some of the idealogy, but respect it far more than other ideologies currently in power.

no, it wasnt personal (as you correctly pointed out, we dont know each other) and i tried my best to at least do it within the relevant context.

Do what exactly. If it was to get me to apologize for a bad attempt at humor, then you wasted the time of many people. That could have been done in one sentence.

If it was to expose me as being something other than what I wish to portrait myself as within this forum, then you wasted your time as well. That, like you attemped to reference with your poorly chosen Nicholas quote, only happens face to face when there is only emotion and reaction. I had plenty of time to contemplate and form whatever responses I chose to offer for your game, so really you accomplished nothing productive.

[rocketsocks]

Sage, what up G, I see you have wasted no time, glad to see it. I've contacted Guinness books, and have them on standup, (oops stand by), they said and old couple from Norway have the longest running argument, but that your in a close second.....C'mon lets really give it hell today, I'm lookin for a book deal here....don't let me down. And since you got up bright eyed and bushy tailed this mouning, you get a additional 4 Argue points. I'll bet todozi sleeps late on the trail too, hehe

[moytoy]

WB has two long running debates going at the same time. Life is good!

[tdoczi]

[QUOTE=pervy_sage;1325109]

Do what exactly. If it was to get me to apologize for a bad attempt at humor, then you wasted the time of many people. That could have been done in one sentence.

If it was to expose me as being something other than what I wish to portrait myself as within this forum, then you wasted your time as well. That, like you attemped to reference with your poorly chosen Nicholas quote, only happens face to face when there is only emotion and reaction. I had plenty of time to contemplate and form whatever responses I chose to offer for your game, so really you accomplished nothing productive.

call it an intellectual exercise then, practice, whatever you want. i appreciate the apology, i should have said that sooner.

[rocketsocks]

So has the universe been restored? if so Free water for everyone....I'm buyin. Come over to the cafe, the pool is full, drink all you's want!

[pervy_sage]

So has the universe been restored? if so Free water for everyone....I'm buyin. Come over to the cafe, the pool is full, drink all you's want!

Not quite...but almost (I hope).

call it an intellectual exercise then, practice, whatever you want. i appreciate the apology, i should have said that sooner.

That is all my original post was referring too, an intellectual exercise I thought was amusing and relevant, not an all encompassing judgement on anyone's particular ideology. All ideologies have flaws, and debate is how we find and fix those flaws by challenging them (assuming one is willing). My libertarian coworker and I spar all the time, and we get on each others nerves all the time, but we still keep coming back to the table because we know it just makes us both better, so long as we are willing to learn and change from the experience. The particular argument I referenced I felt he was not budging and was clinging to a false point (IMO) in his particular flavor of libertarian ideology and I was challenging him on it, hence the divergence of reason and ideology comment, and I shake my head when confronted with that kind of stubbornness. At that point all you end up with is the infinite loop of "Is not, is too..." and so ends the argument (and that is what constitutes a school-boy debate btw). I never implied libertarian ideology was anything other than what it is, a flawed ideology, better than most, but still flawed. Never said it was stupid, never said it was fake, nothing. In fact, I never said anything directly about libertarian ideology, I was referring specifically to my libertarian friend, so it is only to him and his ideology that my comments apply, and he already knows what I think.

I appreciate your attempt to be an advocate, and will always consider apologizing for my BS if someone calls me out on it with a valid argument to the contrary. I thought I had demonstrated that with the rodeo clown apology. I have learned to be more aware of my phrasing, but then that just sucks the joy out of humor. I guess if I had put a wink emoticon after it, that would have made it ok.

---

I just realized I spent a week+ arguing with myself...how wonderful.

Ignore me, I'm just purging the bad energy.

[tdoczi]

That is all my original post was referring too, an intellectual exercise I thought was amusing and relevant, not an all encompassing judgement on anyone's particular ideology. All ideologies have flaws, and debate is how we find and fix those flaws by challenging them (assuming one is willing).

if anything, what i initially was trying to point out was that the fixes have as many flaws as what they are trying to fix. flaws are natural and unavoidable, the pursuit of perfection is unrealistic. part of the appeal of libertarianism to me is that it acknowledges this and accepts this and then asks what is the most fair way to get as close to perfection as possible. the other common mainstream political ideas of today hyperfocus on fixing the problem that is the flavor of the month and say to hell with everything else. an ever changing context if you will. that may give the allusion of solving whatever it is someone like chuck schumer or michael bloomberg is all bent out of shape about today, but brings us nowhere near closer to a perfect society because of all the consequences of the changes they refuse to see. libertarianism accepts that failure is natural and some need to be allowed to fail in order for anyone to succeed. we can not all be above average.