Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: home of the A- community.

Topic: Some heads are gonna roll  (Read 51864 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • uncool
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5325
"It's quote mining to take the number and act as if I haven't addressed your argument."

I did not act as if you never addressed my argument. I just ignored your argument.
LOL. What the hell could you possibly think is the difference between those two things?
That's permitted under the rules of decency last time I checked.
I don't know about "decency," but it's sure as hell not something someone who's interested in truth would do.
I'm betting that he's going to say something along the lines of "I never said you hadn't addressed my argument, so I didn't act as if you hadn't addressed my argument."

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5326
Dave, taking a piece of an argument against you out of context to make it look like it supports you is quote mining, period. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that it's quote mining because you and other creationists like to do it all the time, but it is.

  • Pingu
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5327
I find it extraordinary that Dave, who knows perfectly well that he often selects small extracts from other people's posts, without using the quote function, thus breaking the link to the original, and often not even bothering to quote correctly - indeed sometimes placing words they did not write, and actually putting them in quotation marks - has the nerve to accuse me of "quotemining" by quoting only part of his post (using the quote function btw) - and "implying" something he did not write, even though the context DOES in fact, imply it, and even though in any case, I implied no such thing - I  simply asked him to compare the same metric as he was citing for Trump's period office to Obama's.

To which he replied

Don't know. Don't care.

Then accused me of dishonesty when I provided some data.

The hypocrisy is meter-blowing.

no it's not. It's just that you don't understand what an actual quote mine is.

Oh but I do.

It's taking words someone wrote out of context and using them to make a point that is opposite to the one they were actually making, or the view that they actually hold.  You do it all the time.

Or just, as is often the case with you, because you don't want to engage with the point being made.

Just like you don't understand what reductionism is.

Oh but I do.

And I'm tempted to say just as you don't know what science is

And again, I do.  You are the one that is out of step here, Dave.  You fit data to models.  Scientists fit models to data.

but that would be going a bit too far because I think you do understand some aspects of science it's just that your view of science is far too narrow.

I exclude cargo-cult science.  Which means I exclude what you do.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5328
I find it extraordinary that Dave, who knows perfectly well that he often selects small extracts from other people's posts, without using the quote function, thus breaking the link to the original, and often not even bothering to quote correctly - indeed sometimes placing words they did not write, and actually putting them in quotation marks - has the nerve to accuse me of "quotemining" by quoting only part of his post (using the quote function btw) - and "implying" something he did not write, even though the context DOES in fact, imply it, and even though in any case, I implied no such thing - I  simply asked him to compare the same metric as he was citing for Trump's period office to Obama's.

To which he replied

Don't know. Don't care.

Then accused me of dishonesty when I provided some data.

The hypocrisy is meter-blowing.

no it's not. It's just that you don't understand what an actual quote mine is. Just like you don't understand what reductionism is. And I'm tempted to say just as you don't know what science is but that would be going a bit too far because I think you do understand some aspects of science it's just that your view of science is far too narrow.
To be honest, most people stick to dictionaries for word meanings.  They lack your, uh, 'creativity'
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Sun Jan 14 2018 19:59:03 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
you suck at truth detection. (And spelling)

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5329
I find it extraordinary that Dave, who knows perfectly well that he often selects small extracts from other people's posts, without using the quote function, thus breaking the link to the original, and often not even bothering to quote correctly - indeed sometimes placing words they did not write, and actually putting them in quotation marks - has the nerve to accuse me of "quotemining" by quoting only part of his post (using the quote function btw) - and "implying" something he did not write, even though the context DOES in fact, imply it, and even though in any case, I implied no such thing - I  simply asked him to compare the same metric as he was citing for Trump's period office to Obama's.

To which he replied

Don't know. Don't care.

Then accused me of dishonesty when I provided some data.

The hypocrisy is meter-blowing.

no it's not. It's just that you don't understand what an actual quote mine is. Just like you don't understand what reductionism is. And I'm tempted to say just as you don't know what science is but that would be going a bit too far because I think you do understand some aspects of science it's just that your view of science is far too narrow.
And don't forget Nested Hierarchies.  She doesn't know what thiat s either right Dave? Remind us again about your deep understanding please.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5330
I find it extraordinary that Dave, who knows perfectly well that he often selects small extracts from other people's posts, without using the quote function, thus breaking the link to the original, and often not even bothering to quote correctly - indeed sometimes placing words they did not write, and actually putting them in quotation marks - has the nerve to accuse me of "quotemining" by quoting only part of his post (using the quote function btw) - and "implying" something he did not write, even though the context DOES in fact, imply it, and even though in any case, I implied no such thing - I  simply asked him to compare the same metric as he was citing for Trump's period office to Obama's.

To which he replied

Don't know. Don't care.

Then accused me of dishonesty when I provided some data.

The hypocrisy is meter-blowing.

he advertises a book on dishonest quotemining on his blog, Pingu. What did you expect?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5331
I find it extraordinary that Dave, who knows perfectly well that he often selects small extracts from other people's posts, without using the quote function, thus breaking the link to the original, and often not even bothering to quote correctly - indeed sometimes placing words they did not write, and actually putting them in quotation marks - has the nerve to accuse me of "quotemining" by quoting only part of his post (using the quote function btw) - and "implying" something he did not write, even though the context DOES in fact, imply it, and even though in any case, I implied no such thing - I  simply asked him to compare the same metric as he was citing for Trump's period office to Obama's.

To which he replied

Don't know. Don't care.

Then accused me of dishonesty when I provided some data.

The hypocrisy is meter-blowing.

no it's not. It's just that you don't understand what an actual quote mine is. Just like you don't understand what reductionism is. And I'm tempted to say just as you don't know what science is but that would be going a bit too far because I think you do understand some aspects of science it's just that your view of science is far too narrow.
jesus christ if you tried to use the word "emergence" in a sentence it would have to do with horse cock.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5332
It must be remembered Bluffy believes if he copies the passage exactly, just without its context, it's not a quote mine. That's how he davines it.
but if I do it it is
Of course, that's because you're a manipulative bitch.
See Section 23567-A-51, subsection 5494f, paragraph 21, exception k, and the footnote that explains it.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5333
I'm not pretending.  It DOES support my argument.  As for your bacteria argument, I never even bothered to try to understand it.  Why should I?  Maybe you should sell me on why I should be interested in that.
Yet you quoted a snippet from it, stripped of context, as if it supported your position.

And you don't see a problem with that.

It's not JUST that you suck at science; you also have to be a complete ass about it.
David, if you don't understand, just ask Pingu.  She can take it down to your level, and she's super polite about it.
I think if you could just learn a little about science, you would give up YEC quickly.

Perhaps, if he could. But you fail to take into account that he won't.
Learn, that is.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5334
"It's quote mining to take the number and act as if I haven't addressed your argument."

I did not act as if you never addressed my argument. I just ignored your argument. That's permitted under the rules of decency last time I checked.
Citation required.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5335
I find it extraordinary that Dave, who knows perfectly well that he often selects small extracts from other people's posts, without using the quote function, thus breaking the link to the original, and often not even bothering to quote correctly - indeed sometimes placing words they did not write, and actually putting them in quotation marks - has the nerve to accuse me of "quotemining" by quoting only part of his post (using the quote function btw) - and "implying" something he did not write, even though the context DOES in fact, imply it, and even though in any case, I implied no such thing - I  simply asked him to compare the same metric as he was citing for Trump's period office to Obama's.

To which he replied

Don't know. Don't care.

Then accused me of dishonesty when I provided some data.

The hypocrisy is meter-blowing.

no it's not. It's just that you don't understand what an actual quote mine is. Just like you don't understand what reductionism is. And I'm tempted to say just as you don't know what science is but that would be going a bit too far because I think you do understand some aspects of science it's just that your view of science is far too narrow.
jesus christ if you tried to use the word "emergence" in a sentence it would have to do with horse cock.

It would be interesting to see if Dave could use the word "emergence" in a sentence.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5336
Or are you going to take the position that I am required to acknowledge and engage every argument that is raised here?
Yes
 It is a thread you started. And in which you have propounded various claims. When others question those claims and provide rational arguments against your claims, the decent thing to do is to respond to those questions and the arguments offered, either by retracting the claims or countering them.

Simply acting as if those questions were never raised and those arguments were never posted is the essence of badgering.  When you fail to respond, it appears as if you have no response. Which suggests, strongly that your claims were bullshit from the beginning. And so, that you are a bullshitter.

So you see, Bluffy, actually addressing questions with relevant answers and addressing arguments that counter your claims are for your benefit, not that of your interlocutors. They are an opportunity to redeem your claims and yourself. And to trash those who question you.

Of course, there's always the possibility the questions put to you and the arguments offered will sway you to reconsider your claims and to retract or modify them.

And, as always, you can just badger.
I mean, what's one more badger? You record already has hundreds of badgers, what's one more. It's not likely to significantly affect your credibility. That's already in the double digits negative. Then again, perhaps you are going for a record, triple digits! Woo hoo!!
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5337
I find it extraordinary that Dave, who knows perfectly well that he often selects small extracts from other people's posts, without using the quote function, thus breaking the link to the original, and often not even bothering to quote correctly - indeed sometimes placing words they did not write, and actually putting them in quotation marks - has the nerve to accuse me of "quotemining" by quoting only part of his post (using the quote function btw) - and "implying" something he did not write, even though the context DOES in fact, imply it, and even though in any case, I implied no such thing - I  simply asked him to compare the same metric as he was citing for Trump's period office to Obama's.

To which he replied

Don't know. Don't care.

Then accused me of dishonesty when I provided some data.

The hypocrisy is meter-blowing.

no it's not. It's just that you don't understand what an actual quote mine is. Just like you don't understand what reductionism is. And I'm tempted to say just as you don't know what science is but that would be going a bit too far because I think you do understand some aspects of science it's just that your view of science is far too narrow.
I find it extraordinary that Dave, who knows perfectly well that he often selects small extracts from other people's posts, without using the quote function, thus breaking the link to the original, and often not even bothering to quote correctly - indeed sometimes placing words they did not write, and actually putting them in quotation marks - has the nerve to accuse me of "quotemining" by quoting only part of his post (using the quote function btw) - and "implying" something he did not write, even though the context DOES in fact, imply it, and even though in any case, I implied no such thing - I  simply asked him to compare the same metric as he was citing for Trump's period office to Obama's.

To which he replied

Don't know. Don't care.

Then accused me of dishonesty when I provided some data.

The hypocrisy is meter-blowing.

no it's not. It's just that you don't understand what an actual quote mine is. Just like you don't understand what reductionism is. And I'm tempted to say just as you don't know what science is but that would be going a bit too far because I think you do understand some aspects of science it's just that your view of science is far too narrow.
Did you not take notice of the common definition of "quote mine" I provided?
I could do the same for "reductionism" and "science" and pretty much every davinition you've ever come up with.

The point is, Bluffy, there is a real world out here and it uses definitions for words. That you believe your davinitions should prevail is simply a symptom of your militantly ignorant narcissistic DK posterboy mindset. And, perhaps, one reason you have so much trouble communicating with others.
Are we there yet?

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5338
I find it extraordinary that Dave, who knows perfectly well that he often selects small extracts from other people's posts, without using the quote function, thus breaking the link to the original, and often not even bothering to quote correctly - indeed sometimes placing words they did not write, and actually putting them in quotation marks - has the nerve to accuse me of "quotemining" by quoting only part of his post (using the quote function btw) - and "implying" something he did not write, even though the context DOES in fact, imply it, and even though in any case, I implied no such thing - I  simply asked him to compare the same metric as he was citing for Trump's period office to Obama's.

To which he replied

Don't know. Don't care.

Then accused me of dishonesty when I provided some data.

The hypocrisy is meter-blowing.

no it's not. It's just that you don't understand what an actual quote mine is. Just like you don't understand what reductionism is. And I'm tempted to say just as you don't know what science is but that would be going a bit too far because I think you do understand some aspects of science it's just that your view of science is far too narrow.
jesus christ if you tried to use the word "emergence" in a sentence it would have to do with horse cock.

It would be interesting to see if Dave could use the word "emergence" in a sentence.
You mean, it would be interesting if he could use it because we all know that he has no fucking clue how it relates to holism or systems or even big buttons. He'll just see the word "evolution" and reject the idea as he goes into a sermon on how holistic principles really matter and how he totally understands them
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Faid
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5339
Dave, I don't have much time, but allow me a quick post to show you how a quotemine might work.

(Uploading videos takes time, so just imagine I'm using two hand puppets, OK?)

____________________________________

This number is ridiculously low! Therefore the world cannot be old!

Sure, that number is low. But here's another absurdly low number that would make the world be just 16 YEARS OLD if we applied your logic to it. Therefore those numbers mean nothing and your logic is-

Wait- You just also said that my number is low!

Well yes, but that is not the point. The point is that those low numbers don't mean anyth-

Whatever, don't care. Hey everybody, this guy admits that the number is low! HAH!

...You're quotemining me.

...Am not.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5340
Dave, I don't have much time, but allow me a quick post to show you how a quotemine might work.

(Uploading videos takes time, so just imagine I'm using two hand puppets, OK?)

____________________________________

This number is ridiculously low! Therefore the world cannot be old!

Sure, that number is low. But here's another absurdly low number that would make the world be just 16 YEARS OLD if we applied your logic to it. Therefore those numbers mean nothing and your logic is-

Wait- You just also said that my number is low!

Well yes, but that is not the point. The point is that those low numbers don't mean anyth-

Whatever, don't care. Hey everybody, this guy admits that the number is low! HAH!

...You're quotemining me.

...Am not.
[Continued after ad break]

Yes, you are quotemining me. You quoted something I said out of context, making it look like it supports your point.

No I did not! I didn't say you said the number was high or whatever! I said you said it was LOW, and you DID say it was low!

If you had said that, it would be a misquote and not a quotemine. In a misquote the quote itself is distorted and changed- It's a simple lie. A quotemine is more a lie by omission: The quote is correct, but taken out of context and that creates a false impression.

It wasn't out of context! I just didn't care about the context!

That is the same. It is the context that is important here. In this case, my context was that those low numbers are irrelevant, because the logic behind attributing meaning to them is flawed.

I don't CARE about that! I just care that you said yourslef that the number is low!

Exactly. By ignoring the actual context, you change the meaning of the statement, placing it in a different context. You are creating a false narrative which supports you. In this case, you are making it look as if there was an admission on my behalf over some imaginary point of contention- namely, whether the number was low or not. But that was never my argument.

Er...

So you are quoting me out of context to create false support for your position, while ignoring the actual context which speaks against your position. Get it now?

...You're a liar and a big poopy-head.

No. I'm not. But fortunately for you, we'll cover slander and ad homs next week. Bye everyone!
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5341
Boy. The dave sock puppet sure was smelly.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Pingu
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5342
It's his whole YEC technique in microcosm. Derek Ager said that geology is CATASTROPHIC! Yes, Dave, but he said lots of non-global catastrophes not one big catastrophe. I don't care about what else he said.  He probably just didn't want to be disinvited from the octohatter sherry parties.  The point is that he said that geology is CATASTROPHIC.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • uncool
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5343
Hey Dave: want to see how you could have been honest and still used that number without quote-mining?
  • Last Edit: January 19, 2018, 09:38:27 AM by uncool

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5344
Kinda looking like badger/reboot here.

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5345
Hey Dave: want to see how you could have been honest and still used that number without quote-mining?
okay why not. This might be entertaining.

  • uncool
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5346
It's actually quite easy. Just don't remove the context. Acknowledge its presence, even if you don't know why it is there. For example, you could have said:

"You think the number is as low as 0.000018? I have no idea what you were saying about bacteria, but you've got to be joking if you think 0.000018 is reasonable".

Note the main difference: there is a direct response to me, which acknowledges that I disagree with your premise somehow. Which you utterly failed to do.
  • Last Edit: January 19, 2018, 12:25:15 PM by uncool

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5347
I don't see how that changes anything other than it's a little more polite because it acknowledges your calculation about bacteria.  you do believe that Don battens number is Bonkers and you believe that your number is much more reasonable so my post simply Echoed that fact.

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5348
How in that entire discussion did you never manage to grasp the fact, no matter how many times it was pointed out, that any proposed constant rate of population growth for the entirety of human history is bonkers because population growth is not fucking constant?

  • Pingu
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #5349
How in that entire discussion did you never manage to grasp the fact, no matter how many times it was pointed out, that any proposed constant rate of population growth for the entirety of human history is bonkers because population growth is not fucking constant?

He never even got to square one on that.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.