|
|
Post by naill on Nov 24, 2012 7:44:22 GMT -5
I expected this response from Herb. He has used a similar response before. Essentially, he will attempt to show that what he said actually agrees with information that had been posted to counter his argument. He did this in the abortion discussion. He stated that science had not been able to determine when human life begins. I posted the work of experts who stated clearly that the DNA of the individual is present in the fertilized egg. His response was that this did not disagree with what he had said.
When I first arrived here, Sordello was in the accepted rat pack of Tod, Herb, and Bill. After he began to disagree with them , he fell from grace.
No one has been more mistreated than Don. He was called everything but a white man, but no one took issue. It was noticeable that Herb and Bill never said a word. The only time Herb took issue is if I or someone he does not agree with used a slang word. Then he was quick with judgment.
The two members who have used the most vulgar language is Tod and Bill. Why doesn't Herb have anything to say? I think we know. He is being dishonest.
The members that I enjoy discussing with here the most are those who often disagree with me. They never call me names or suggest that I am not being nice. They focus on the topic and if we misunderstand each other we have the capacity to say "I'm sorry".
The anger and intolerance of the liberal non religious community here is humorous. I think they want to be thought of as loving, tolerant, understanding and progressive. They are anything but! And, it's always, but always those that disagree with them who are angry and not nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by sordello on Nov 24, 2012 19:55:11 GMT -5
Charlie's point is quite valid - whether we deal with automatic acceptance or a hint of credibility, it still stands that peoples' education background is being presented as a distraction to a discussion point. Though I don't believe it is presented as a call to 'automatic acceptance' it is a sophistry intended to suggest that there is some weight, some credibility to the point being made. I am sure you will agree also it is sophistry for if I were to ask you to believe in God now because several well-reputed theologians with many degrees {insert an alphabet soup of distinguished degrees here} believe in God so you should believe also... well, I am sure you will suddenly be making the same arguments Charlie and I are making, in the manner of "what does that have to do with this point being discussed?" Or would you? Does a college degree give credibility to a proposition? The real question alluded to by Charlie still remains: is the education background being presented to lend credibility, or to buttress a faltering argument? And the wider question was asked several times by me in other threads and, of course, never answered: what does a science degree have to do with Evolution Theory which is a speculative theory and not actual scientific 'investigation'? The point I made was that neither Tod nor Bill expected automatic acceptance of their arguments when they brought up their formal education. You don't seem to dispute that and the rest of your post is not an argument against my point. Whether one's background is germane to a discussion depends on individual circumstances. In a discussion about the Vietnam war, depending on the specifics, it may or may not be appropriate if one were to mention that though there as a civilian, one was wounded in the fighting and still carries the disfiguring scars. In explaining the differences between USB and FireWire, is it not pertinent for one to mention one was once a systems engineer? Though I don't recall the circumstances, you have brought up your being an accountant in at least one discussion and your experience with statistics in another. Were those instances where you were guilty of sophistry or was it appropriate for you to invoke authority? My point was not to argue against your post but to point out that Charlie had a valid point. Your post relies on hidden knowledge of Tod and Bill's expectations. I have no way of knowing if you have this hidden knowledge. I agree that individual circumstances are key to the relevance of one's background. Yes, I have invoked my accounting background, but you will find I have done so in specific cases where my work is germane to the point. For instance, I may say, "salary costs are often the major expense item in any company's books; I know this from doing financial statements from my accounting work." That is germane to the point. You will not find me using, as others do, my background to try to support vague and wild speculations in general. I wouldn't say. "socialism is a much better system than capitalism and my years in accounting have proven that out, so just trust me it's true." I also don't say it's true because thousands of other people agree with me. That also, is not germane to the point being discussed. I may bring it up to show I am not alone in that thinking, but I don't try to pawn off to others that an argument is valid because others believe it too. We both know that is a fallacy. We both know, through numerous historical examples, that 'consensus' doesn't mean Truth. Your Vietnam war witness can support his remarks on how horrible war is, or what the effects of war on the individual are by using his own experience, but it would be silly for him to use his personal experience as evidential weight for the contention that Communism is an evil political system. Since Evolution Theory is not to be equated with biological sciences, it is equally invalid to suggest that a person with a biology degree can speak with authority on an evolutionary creation myth. Just as it would invalid to suggest that a theology professor with three degrees after his name can argue with greater credibility and force that God does exist. As I suggested long ago, if we are to believe in Evolution Theory because thousands of "scientists" with degrees support that current theory, then you are forced by the very same logic to believe that God exists. |
|
|
|
Post by lindaw on Nov 26, 2012 7:40:34 GMT -5
It seems that lots of you just want a place where you can post threads about how stupid people are who have a differing point of view than you, and then have everyone nod their heads and give polite applause. As far as the atmoshphere, it seems odd how you would point the fingers at others, including me, when I've never called anyone the names you have called people. Maybe you should examine your behavior first before you start giving lectures. Yep |
|
|
|
Post by lindaw on Nov 26, 2012 7:43:38 GMT -5
How would you rate your attitude? How is your attitude compared to Blowtorch? It is more than just attitude. I worked very hard at having civil discussions. Some would rather just be snarky and have pissing contests than a civil discussion. I worked very hard at sticking to the topics. Then I would get frustrated when in people's responses they would distort and misrepresent my positions. Or they just want to taunt like in blowtorches most recent response. I have had my moments when I lost my temper, most here have. No one here is sinless. We all have contributed to the hostile atmosphere and if you want to blame it all on me that's fine. How many names are you posting under? |
|
|
|
Post by lindaw on Nov 26, 2012 7:46:52 GMT -5
Why on earth would I want to discusse these issues with you? You discredit, dismiss and discount my education. If you think by posting you have two advanced degrees and your GPA that your views are to be acceptied without arguement, you have a few screws loose. You are all over the place. What is it you want, someone to enable? Did you ever wonder why we remain in contact with you? Advise them to take an objective look at themselves to see if they have played any role in the problem. She does not look down on you, Bill. If she is like me, she gets weary of your arrogant spirit acting like you have the full weight of fact that supports your preferences. That may be a good decision, but if you find you still have the same problems perhaps you will finally look at yourself. I have treated both you and Linda with equal contempt and I have been wrong in doing that. So given all that has gone on I think the healthiest thing for me to do is leave. You contempt has no affect on me and I doubt it does for Linda. Your actions allow you not to be taken seriously. In 48 hours you have insulted several, thrown your own beliefs under the bus, changed you name four times, and whined as if you have been victimized. I have not seen such an example of immature behavior in a middle aged person is some time, friend. If you want to go or just have your private conversations with your emasulated friends, go ahead. If you want to grow up and understand you don't have all the answers, I would very much appreciate you staying. It is your choice. There's not a thing I can add here. Very well said. |
|
|
|
Post by lindaw on Nov 26, 2012 7:52:09 GMT -5
That they expect credibility because of their stated academic work is exactly the point I was making. No. You unequivocally spoke of automatic acceptance not a degree of credibility. If information from a newspaper article is mentioned in a discussion, one wants to know which newspaper and specifying, say, the Washington Post does not garner automatic acceptance. If a member is using information gathered from one's field of study, he doesn't necessarily mention the formal education behind it expecting automatic acceptance, he mentions it to convey a level of knowledge beyond that of a layperson. My 'layperson' husband's learning disabilities kept him out of college years ago. Now, thank God, there is support for such people - and technology. However, I could set my husband against anyone with a doctorate and he'd blow them out of the water. He's brilliant and has been successful beyond belief, due to his brains, and frankly, sheer grit. Unlike the whiners out there with masters and doctorates in Art History or Philosophy, demanding employment. |
|
|
|
Post by lindaw on Nov 26, 2012 7:54:17 GMT -5
I expected this response from Herb. He has used a similar response before. Essentially, he will attempt to show that what he said actually agrees with information that had been posted to counter his argument. He did this in the abortion discussion. He stated that science had not been able to determine when human life begins. I posted the work of experts who stated clearly that the DNA of the individual is present in the fertilized egg. His response was that this did not disagree with what he had said. When I first arrived here, Sordello was in the accepted rat pack of Tod, Herb, and Bill. After he began to disagree with them , he fell from grace. No one has been more mistreated than Don. He was called everything but a white man, but no one took issue. It was noticeable that Herb and Bill never said a word. The only time Herb took issue is if I or someone he does not agree with used a slang word. Then he was quick with judgment. The two members who have used the most vulgar language is Tod and Bill. Why doesn't Herb have anything to say? I think we know. He is being dishonest. The members that I enjoy discussing with here the most are those who often disagree with me. They never call me names or suggest that I am not being nice. They focus on the topic and if we misunderstand each other we have the capacity to say "I'm sorry". The anger and intolerance of the liberal non religious community here is humorous. I think they want to be thought of as loving, tolerant, understanding and progressive. They are anything but! And, it's always, but always those that disagree with them who are angry and not nice. The interesting thing is that while Sord and I disagree, I rather like the guy! Can't help it, sorry Sord  |
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Nov 26, 2012 7:56:34 GMT -5
No. You unequivocally spoke of automatic acceptance not a degree of credibility. If information from a newspaper article is mentioned in a discussion, one wants to know which newspaper and specifying, say, the Washington Post does not garner automatic acceptance. If a member is using information gathered from one's field of study, he doesn't necessarily mention the formal education behind it expecting automatic acceptance, he mentions it to convey a level of knowledge beyond that of a layperson. My 'layperson' husband's learning disabilities kept him out of college years ago. Now, thank God, there is support for such people - and technology. However, I could set my husband against anyone with a doctorate and he'd blow them out of the water. He's brilliant and has been successful beyond belief, due to his brains, and frankly, sheer grit. Unlike the whiners out there with masters and doctorates in Art History or Philosophy, demanding employment. The above has nothing to do with whether the biscuits were made from scratch. |
|
|
|
Post by lindaw on Nov 26, 2012 13:25:07 GMT -5
Herb comes forward with "I care not to engage" after stating this: "he mentions it to convey a level of knowledge beyond that of a layperson" A layperon, i.e. someone who wasn't formally educated in college, and therefore know less. OK then  |
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Nov 26, 2012 14:29:26 GMT -5
Herb comes forward with "I care not to engage" after stating this: "he mentions it to convey a level of knowledge beyond that of a layperson" A layperon, i.e. someone who wasn't formally educated in college, and therefore know less. OK then A layperson is some without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject. A person with a medical degree in neurology could be a layperson with regard to the field of electronics. |
|
|
|
Post by lindaw on Nov 26, 2012 15:14:37 GMT -5
Herb comes forward with "I care not to engage" after stating this: "he mentions it to convey a level of knowledge beyond that of a layperson" A layperon, i.e. someone who wasn't formally educated in college, and therefore know less. OK then A layperson is some without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject. A person with a medical degree in neurology could be a layperson with regard to the field of electronics. So my husband is a layperson in computer science because he does not have a college degree? You specifically related the word layperson to formal education. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2012 15:18:28 GMT -5
a Layman was a term to describe a non-Clergy person. It has evolved into describing a person who holds no title, credentials or certification in a specific field of study.
|
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Nov 26, 2012 15:18:31 GMT -5
A layperson is some without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject. A person with a medical degree in neurology could be a layperson with regard to the field of electronics. You specifically related the word layperson to formal education. No I didn't, I said, "professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2012 15:25:55 GMT -5
[quote author=herbhunter board=general thread=2836 post=79308 time=1353961111No I didn't, I said, "professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject. [/quote]
Lets say someone has studied meteorology as ahobby for 20+ years. Like myself for instance. I feel I have gathered considerble knowledge in those years but since I do not have any credentials then I consider myself a layman in the field.
|
|
|
|
Post by lindaw on Nov 26, 2012 16:29:18 GMT -5
...You specifically related the word layperson to formal education. No I didn't, I said, "professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject. Herb, your whole point was in defense of Tod and Bill stating their degrees and why. Please! |
|
