|
The purpose of arguing | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 11:49:09 |
|
If you ever admitted error in your basic premises, | by adiplomat | 2004-01-13 11:55:20 |
| which is fair enough. |
by subbywan |
2004-01-13 12:07:50 |
just because I don't post it doesn't mean I'm not changing my views. I do not believe that I am flat-out wrong in the case below, but I do believe that my original statement needed modification (which I did in the thread).
I'm not out to either win an argument or convince people i'm right. I'm out to get opinions on where other people see my arguments as being wrong, and see if I agree with them. Just because people point out the places they think I'm wrong doesn't mean *I* think i'm wrong there. It also doesn't mean I won't argue back to see if I can poke holes in any of their statements, because that helps strength my views by giving me a more complete idea of what they're thinking.
If you're expecting me to ever admit "i'm wrong, you're right", yes, you better just ignore my threads/arguments, because while it *might* happen, it's not likely to. My arguments may seem illogical and stupid from your point of view, but they're not from mine.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Which support MY argument: | by LurkerMo | 2004-01-13 12:13:54 |
|
Then you are a leech. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 12:30:20 |
|
Perhaps | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 12:34:26 |
|
That makes me think of Capt. X's question | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 12:58:13 |
|
Which is fair enough (n/t) | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 13:02:35 |
|
Arguing is just bickering. What I would suggest | by webishop | 2004-01-13 12:47:09 |
|
I would suggest that you check a dictionary. | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-13 12:53:21 |
|
Not with subby (n/t) | by webishop | 2004-01-13 14:55:38 |
|
Anything is possible with me :) (n/t) | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 15:05:13 |
|
Even a quadruple backflip off a sidewalk | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 15:15:13 |
|
Possible, but *highly* improbable :) (n/t) | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 15:19:36 |
|
But again, | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 13:01:04 |
|
You just never know where insight and that | by NOLAWitch | 2004-01-13 13:14:17 |
|
Hmmm .. point .. | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 13:17:08 |
|
As have I, in at least one issue we have in common | by adiplomat | 2004-01-13 13:35:32 |
|
I haven't. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 13:38:37 |
|
I haven't either. | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-13 13:45:32 |
|
lol (nt) | by gibuu | 2004-01-13 13:46:30 |
|
Haven't you BEEN a newt already? (n/t) | by adiplomat | 2004-01-13 13:51:32 |
|
I feel the same way about some of you Christians. | by NOLAWitch | 2004-01-13 13:45:08 |
|
THAT, my dear NOLA, was the "issue in common" | by adiplomat | 2004-01-13 13:49:40 |
|
"No-one ever wins an arguement" | by swisscheese | 2004-01-13 13:17:54 |
|
You will never win one with That attitude. | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-13 13:24:04 |
|
I don't want to win -- I want to persuade ... | by swisscheese | 2004-01-13 13:38:26 |
|
Isn't that the same thing? | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-13 13:52:15 |
|
I argue to win. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 13:56:35 |
|
I would go further and say | by PathOGene | 2004-01-13 13:37:01 |
|
I'd say .. "sentient" (n/t) | by swisscheese | 2004-01-13 13:40:52 |
|
Perhaps, but only if | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-13 13:41:25 |
|
The discussion, | by PathOGene | 2004-01-13 13:54:02 |
|
If you are arguing to win | by gibuu | 2004-01-13 13:49:02 |
|
GB Shaw quote: apples vs ideas | by swisscheese | 2004-01-13 13:56:31 |
|
Even if it is agreeing | by PathOGene | 2004-01-13 13:57:44 |
|
I usually LART people who do that. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 14:23:04 |
|
why? (nt) | by gibuu | 2004-01-13 14:24:46 |
|
I would assume it's obvious. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 14:26:58 |
|
Oh, bull | by tigermouse | 2004-01-13 14:57:58 |
|
A slightly more helpful response: | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-13 14:33:11 |
|
You assume that gibuu's monosyllabic | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 14:39:16 |
|
Well, my response was slightly more helpful | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-13 14:46:06 |
|
Yes... | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 14:53:00 |
|
It is the same question. | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-13 15:19:44 |
|
Nope. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 15:25:03 |
|
I didn't. | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-13 15:32:03 |
|
Why | by gibuu | 2004-01-13 14:50:44 |
|
insert "or" between | by gibuu | 2004-01-13 14:52:00 |
|
LART | by BloodyViking | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
thanks :) | by gibuu | 2004-01-13 15:00:46 |
|
It doesn't mean laugh. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 15:03:37 |
|
thanks again | by gibuu | 2004-01-13 15:11:39 |
|
I can do that before arguing, though. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 15:23:06 |
|
ok | by gibuu | 2004-01-13 15:52:53 |
|
I'm pretty sure that's not what it means. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 17:09:45 |
|
**yawns at Naruki** **agrees to disagree | by adiplomat | 2004-01-13 20:13:36 |
|
To which you are entitled. (n/t) | by PathOGene | 2004-01-13 14:32:02 |
|
Really? | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 14:33:23 |
|
Isn't it obvious? | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-13 14:35:00 |
|
The Constitution! :) (n/t) | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 14:37:24 |
|
Old Ironsides? | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 14:39:47 |
|
it's got (or had) the biggest gun, you nit! ;P (n/t) | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 14:41:55 |
|
It's not the size that matters... | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 14:51:00 |
|
Damn manual targetting! (n/t) | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 14:51:31 |
|
Sometimes one set of facts will support more than | by swisscheese | 2004-01-13 15:00:02 |
|
Um... so? | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 15:05:25 |
|
There is that absolute | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-13 13:59:10 |
