You called me "too stubborn or too stupid." I responded, not by attacking you back, but by defending myself and reminding you of my professional background. When you pointed it out, I said that you had called me stupid, and you responded with, "no I didn't. I said "to stubborn or too stupid."

This? This is the great example of me being intellectually dishonest? In a thread where you are trying to argue that the problem with police brutality is people interacting with police and not the police illegally brutalizing people and then covering it up, and you think that the big smoking gun on intellectual dishonesty is that I hacked off the word "stubborn" from a post that you could easily go back up and copy and paste the full quote?



Okay, let me see if this will sink into your fat head. If you don't want me throwing in your face my "superior intellect," then maybe you shouldn't call me stupid......er, I mean, "stubborn or stupid."


Brownie, you are just whining and making shit up. I ignore well reasoned arguments? You are fucking kidding me. I don't think there's but two other people in this forum who have a harder time walking away from an argument than I do. In fact, i'm sitting here right now wasting my Saturday afternoon responding to your crap because I can't let it go. You found one post where I said you called me stupid, you corrected me and said it was "stubborn or stupid," and I never acknowledged that, well yes, technically it was "stubborn or stupid," in a thread that had nothing to do with whatever the personal attack was that you levied on me was, and that's what you've got to support your claim that I'm routinely intellectually dishonest?

If it makes you happy, I will freely admit that sometimes when someone insults me, and I point out that that was the reason I insulted that person back, I often don't go back and copy the full insult verbatim and will sometimes leave out details. If you ever see me calling someone out for doing the same, feel free to call me a hypocrite. You can even reference this very post.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Speaking of, this came across my news feed today:

I don't think I've ever heard her address Hyde one way or the other, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised at her position (or that people opposed to Hyde have called it sexist, gender inequality, etc.). Hyde might be the least disagreeable middle ground there is to be had on the issue. I guess even that is asking too much.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Sorry, but I don't particularly feel any obligation to hold myself to the standard of discourse used by partisan tools. I'd prefer to have a reasonable discussion where we don't allow broad generalizations that simply don't represent reality to go unchallenged.


I'm sure that's true for some pro-choice proponents. Of course, that formulation ignores all the pro-choice people who are pro-choice for certain circumstances, and favor govt involvement in others. And it ignores the pro-choice proponents who care enough, but simply don't believe the govt is the way to go about stopping abortion. Etc, etc.

That's the problem when you try to paint everyone who has a difference of opinion with you as all having the same opinion. It's not your opinion and the other opinion. It's your opinion and a whole variety of other opinions, some of which partly agree with yours, some of which entirely disagree with yours, etc.

But hey, it's election season so why not make everything completely binary and ignore any attempt at nuanced or sophisticated analysis of an issue? It's much easier to just paint the other side as the devil.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

So, "six, but I don't like the way 'half dozen' sounds."

Got it.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Um, no. But whatever.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Just a quick snip, but we'll start with this: reminding me of your professional background, that you've taught logic courses and taken stats classes. How does that qualify you to speak to policing and specifically officers in black neighborhoods again? You believe yourself to be better, more qualified than everyone else here with absolutely no evidence to back it up, so maybe that's a generic example of your intellectual dishonesty: you have zero clue who it is you're interacting with in the LR beyond what little you know about these folks, yet you hold yourself up as an authority on any number of things because of a general aptitude in stats in logical reasoning. Skinny, posting in some of these BLM/racism/LEO threads, has said he has 15 years of experience as a law officer and a strong analytical background. My father and brother in law work in prisons, an uncle in probation, a number of friends are cops, a few family members work in community outreach/support organizations, and I happen to have a background in stats and numerous courses in logic. Not that I believe I'm any more an authority on the subject than anyone else, but how is it that you're better qualified to speak to these matters, with skinny, myself, anyone else on here?

You asked for an example, one example, or I'd have to shut the fuck up about this, right? I presented one example and you both moved the goalposts (I guess this example isn't good enough for you?) and further dug in, then insulted me to boot (I actually have a fairly skinny head, thanks).

Finally, I didn't say you didn't continue dialog and conversations, I said you ignored well-reasoned logic. You dig in further, which often entails moving goal posts, conflating arguments, creating strawmen. When was the last time you contributed to a thread with one view, then as arguments were presented--some facts were thrown about, some intelligent conversation was had--you said 'you know what, you're right', or even conceded on some small point? The fact is you're not always right, and you're not always as knowledgeable as others on here on certain topics. If you'd learn to admit that maybe we won't go down as many tangents on some of these threads.

Oh, and I'll finish by saying that I do have trouble backing off as well, I can never leave well enough alone. I wish I could allow things to roll off my back better, but right now I can't. So I certainly contribute to some of the thread derailing. I'm not trying to be an ass, to insult you, to moralize, but I do think accepting the people here as similarly intelligent, logical, well-meaning and hard-working individuals would do some good, sincerely.

From her website:


Interesting politically. Her husband's policy was such that pro-life people could consider crossing over to support him.

Federal funding of abortion is an issue that will block pro-lifers from crossing over. Maybe they've she's lost that vote anyway, doesn't need them, and this energizes some of her base.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Is this discussion about people who have abortions and their likely reasons for it, or about people who support the right to have an abortion? Because I thought the comment everyone was responding to was that stupid one that Clinton (who as far as we know has never had an abortion) doesn't care for children until after they are born.

Getting pretty ridiculous, especially in the context of Democratic politicians who accuse conservatives of not caring about "the children" at the drop of a hat.

Yes, that's pretty ridiculous.

So I guess by pointing this finger, you're also point the same one at yourself. In other words, just as it's ridiculous and simplistic to accuse conservatives of not caring about children at the drop of a hat, it's equally ridiculous and simplistic to accuse someone who is pro-choice of only caring about children after they are born.

How about this formulation: Pro-choice people don't care enough about children before they're born to stop their mothers from killing them for any reason, or no reason, that the mother chooses?

How about this formulation. People prioritize. Sometimes they're consistent with their priorities, and sometimes they're are not. And while you can often draw conclusions about what's important to someone by how they prioritize it, it's still often a highly individualized process. So it's often stupid and simplistic to make generalized statements about people's motives and motivations, especially when you're dealing with highly complex and nuanced issues.

That's why this kind of childish simplification is so stupid. I'm betting Vitus hasn't been out there rallying for anti abortion legislation, or actively lobbying his representatives, or spending all his money on anti abortion measures, or etc, etc. why doesn't he care about unborn children? Obviously a stupid thing to ask, but that's the basic "formulation" these guys use.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

That's not to say generalizations and simplifications don't have their place.

People prioritize. Sometimes they're consistent with their priorities, and sometimes they're are not. And while you can often draw conclusions about what's important to someone by how they prioritize it, it's still often a highly individualized process.

Prioritizing is clearly an individualised process but it doesn't change the fact that people will always do what is in their best interest, or what is most important to them. That could be different for everyone but the basic facts are the same. If something is really important to you, you will do it. If its not really important or falls down your priority list, you won't.

So, when someone says they had an abortion because they didn't want to lose their job, or they don't have enough money, or they are too embarrassed to tell their parents etc., it simply means those other things are more important to them than their unborn child. In America in 2016, there likely aren't a lot of situations where having an abortion is a "Sophie's Choice" or a matter of life and death, it is a choice based on priorities. If someone makes that choice, for whatever reason (other than life or death) it simply means the child is not that important to them. If it was really important, they would keep it. To turn around and say they really do love the child but...is a cop out.

Again, are we talking about people who are pro choice? Or people who have made a difficult decision to have an abortion? They're not the same thing.

The argument made earlier in the thread is that people who are pro choice, regardless of what decisions they may have made in the personal lives, only care about children after they have been born.

You're talking yourself in circles.


Um, yeah. The last sentence is basically the definition of "prioritizing."


There's a difference between something being "really important to you," and that thing being "more important to you than anything else." The fact that something falls down the priority list a couple spots doesn't mean it wasn't really important, just that other things were more important.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

That's not to say generalizations and simplifications don't have their place.

Just not anywhere near the LR, apparently, where any potential exceptions completely invalidate generalizations.

It's generally true that pro-choice people don't value the life of the unborn child as much as they value the mother's right to choose to end that unborn life. That's, you know, generally the very definition of "pro-choice."

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Individual exceptions do invalidate the generalizations when the generalizations are being used to attempt to describe a single person, as in this case.

That said, the issue is not generalizations in general, so much as the fact that this generalization is simply inaccurate.


And that is not what the previous generalization was. You don't get to come in with a new premise that means something different, and act as if you won the discussion about the previous premise.

Not caring about X as much as you care about Y is not the same as not caring about X.

The premise in play was that people who are pro-choice don't care about X (unborn children). That's not the same thing as what you're saying now.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Individual exceptions do invalidate the generalizations when the generalizations are being used to attempt to describe a single person, as in this case.

What single person are we supposedly referring to?



The premise in play was that people who are pro-choice don't care about X (unborn children). That's not the same thing as what you're saying now.

Again, it was a generalization, and it's generally true. It's kind of hard to claim that people who think a mother should be allowed to kill their unborn children if they choose to value the lives of those unborn children. It's also kind of hard to ignore the actual language often employed by pro-choice people when they argue for the right to abortion- it doesn't generally lead one to believe that they place much value on the lives of unborn children.

But you objected to that broad statement, and I amended it awhile back to say that they don't value the unborn children as much as they value the mother's right to choose to kill it. Which is not much more than a tautology, and yet people are striving mighty hard to argue against it.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Your inability to understand something doesn't make me intellectually dishonest.

I've included the full context below. I never made the claim that my knowledge of logic and statistics qualifies me to speak on policing in black neighborhoods. It qualifies me to speak on the relationship between two events with regard to statistics. Committing a crime is not a causal event. Yes, it increases the chances of getting shot, but it doesn't *cause* you to get shot.

The reason why I said specifically what I did was because slowguy said that *everyone* understood that there was a causal relationship. If I'm better qualified on the subject than "everyone" in the discussion, why would I reference some sort of poll to determine if my view was correct?

So, for future reference, when you say, "Barry is intellectually dishonest," lets just assume what you really mean is, "I'm confused."


Oh, and on a side note. When I was being "intellectually dishonest" by not including the "stubborn" part of the insult, and then never acknowledging that you said it, if it was so germane to the conversation, then why did you wait until now to bring it up when you could have pointed it out the following post?


[pasted post below for context]

But there is clearly (to everyone, including you though you refuse to admit it) a relationship between committing a crime and getting shot by police.
Of the "everyone" who is discussing the issue, I'm pretty sure only one of us has ever taught logic or studied statistics, so I don't really care what "everyone" thinks about the relationship between two unrelated events.

What's the probability of drawing an ace out of a deck of 52 cards?

What's the probability if after drawing the a card you get to look at it and draw another card if you aren't happy with the card you've drawn and you can keep doing this until you get the card you want?

What if there was only one ace in a deck of 1,000 cards?

The answers are 7.7%, 100%, and 100%.

In the first example it was a completely random event. In the second example, the following events made the original event unrelated.

To make this more like the police killing example, we can change it to the odds of "not drawing an ace." Now the answers are 96.3%, 0%, and 0%.

What if you don't play the game at all? 0%.

The fact that breaking the law is a required step in the sequence that leads up to getting killed by police, it is unrelated to the odds of the risk of getting shot by the police, other than it being a required step if one wishes to get shot. If there is an increased risk, regardless of any decisions made after breaking the law, then that is a problem with the police departments, not the citizens. According to our Constitution and basic civil rights, risk of getting killed by police is not a legitimate way to deter crime. Other methods need to be used as crime deterrent.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Supposedly? This entire line of discussion started because of this:


"I did piss off my daughter (dem, like her mother) when I said "after they are born" whenever Chelsea said the word "children" in reference to Hillary, like Chelsea said, "she cared about children," and I'd interject, "after they are born." "

Your first contribution to this line of discussion followed several posts of exchange about whether or not Hillary cares about unborn babies.


Which generalization are you claiming is generally true now? That pro choice people don't care about unborn children, or that pro choice people don't care about unborn children as much as they care about the mothers? Again, and I feel like it's ridiculous to have to point this out over and over, but those two things are not the same.


Man, you just can't stick with a single generalization that you'd like to maintain, huh?

Let's do this. First, pick a premise you'd like to defend. Then maybe we could proceed. You can pick from any of the ones you've listed so far.

a. "being pro-choice does pretty much mean that you don't care about children before they're born. "
b. "Pro-choice people don't care enough about children before they're born to stop their mothers from killing them for any reason, or no reason, that the mother chooses"
c. "It's generally true that pro-choice people don't value the life of the unborn child as much as they value the mother's right to choose to end that unborn life. "

None of those mean the same as the others, so it might be good to settle on which one you like most, so we can examine it, instead of shifting every few posts.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The goal posts shift as needed.

And to be clear, *I* knew that it was supposed to be about Clinton caring about children and how it relates to her position on abortion, but as we dug into it, it went from "people who think abortion should be legal don't care" to "people in college who have abortions don't care," you know......because they original charge wasn't holding enough water.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

The subject of the thread was, generally, law enforcement in black communities, and you contributed to that larger discussion throughout. An argument was presented that crime levels among the black population largely (not completely) can be used to explain the higher rate of police use of force.

You chose to use a statistics background to examine a causal relationship, yet as many of us pointed out policing isn't a deck of cards, it's not a set of pre-programmed binary decisions. So when you say your background "qualifies [you] to speak on the relationship between two events with regard to statistics", you can't use a static example and then state as a conclusion:
Not only did you create a strawman--no one said that police brutality should be or is used as a way to deter crime--you also jumped from your binary deck of cards example to real-world application and concluded that the police are completely responsible for anything that results in use of force when trying to arrest suspects. I wouldn't ever do that, but I guess you're the logic expert so you tell me: do you see any problems in the argument you presented? I'd imagine the answer is no, and while you're presenting the answer I'll probably see more of this:
I do very much appreciate the constant insults. You took issue with the 'stupid' comment, which was a faulty conclusion anyway since I never called you stupid. And yet post after post, thread after thread, you insult us and don't seem to care. If we disagree with you we 'don't understand it', or we're confused. You bring a gun while I bring a knife. Over and over again.

I'm sure you'll respond, so I'll just say that I'll do my best to NOT respond again, not because you've 'won' or that I agree with anything you'll say but because I don't like derailing threads and it's pretty dumb to keep this back-and-forth going.

That was not what I was responding to. That part was pretty obvious and I don't think a single person in that thread was in contention of that point.

The contention was the attitude displayed, by several people, that based on that reasoning, if you don't want to get brutalized or shot by police, then don't commit crimes. I extended that logic to "don't get out of bed in the morning," to show that just because something improves that statistical likelihood of you avoiding getting brutalized by the police, doesn't mean that its your responsibility to do so, nor that it absolves the police of their responsibility to not shoot or brutalize its citizens.

You can jump in whatever direction you want from that point, but that was what I was specifically referring to. Its not a straw man and its not intellectual dishonesty.

And to be clear, the problem with the argument was the arbitrary assignment of "interactions with police as it relates to breaking laws." I used my bear cage at the zoo analogy to illustrate this.

Again, if YOU don't understand that, that does not make ME intellectually dishonest.


I never said that. I never implied that, nor did I ever write anything that could remotely lead a reasonable person to infer that from what I wrote. The topic was specifically police brutality: ie EXCESSIVE and or UNNECESSARY use of force.


You play the poor put upon white, Christian, conservative, male quite nicely. Keep in mind that this very sub-thread is about you attacking my intellectual honesty. The example you referenced was predicated by you calling me stubborn or stupid. If you are intent on poking a sleeping Barry with a stick, don't cry when you get bit.


Speaking of intellectual dishonesty......yeah, it was "stubborn or stupid" as the charge for why I didn't understand your brilliant commentary.


I try my best not to insult people who aren't asking for it. Lets take yourself as an example......you called me "stubborn or stupid" and then "intellectually dishonest." Sorry, I'm not putting on the kiddie gloves when I interact with you. If you don't like it, then maybe you should change your demeanor......you know, especially if you are a fan of the "avoid brutality by not breaking the law" mentality.


Next time try keeping on point rather than starting tangents about my alleged intellectual dishonesty, especially when you are incapable of finding a good example.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485