wellcookedfetus,
Since you have already berated me for posting in this thread (and called it cross posting), I will direct you to the other thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=676136#post676136
I had not intended to carry on the same debate on two different threads. But I feel that I must respond to your many false accusations against me on this thread.
HOWARDSTERN,
1) Your opinions are not against the rules as someone managed to post the very same opinions and back it with evidence.
You say that my opinions are not against the rules, yet you say that I can't post them, without providing evidence that they are my opinions with this rule:
Political Forum Rules
C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.
For one thing, wellcookedfetus, that rule makes no sense at all. It says that I must provide evidence of my opinion. An opinion is just that. An opinion does not mean that it is a fact. There is a big difference between an opinion and a fact, wellcookedfetus.
2) Because if you don't then why should we believe you, many people don't provide evidence and thus many will ask them "why should we believe that?" at which point there argument is revealed to be null. The way you distributed your opinion was not in argument form but in inflammatory pictures, fearing retaliation or at the very least total ignoral of you topic that I think needs to be discussed intellectually, I close your thread.
I don't care if you believe it or not, wellcookedfetus. It's up to you or anyone else to choose to believe it or not.
Besides all that, wellcooked fetus, I did not state that any of the things at my closed thread were facts. In fact, I was asking questions, not stating anything as being a fact.
You seem to be more than a little confused about the differences between opinions and facts, wellcooked fetus.
The way you distributed your opinion was not in argument form but in inflammatory pictures, fearing retaliation or at the very least total ignoral of you topic that I think needs to be discussed intellectually, I close your thread.
wellcookedfetus, the quote above that you wrote pretty much says it all. It should not be up to you to decide what is being discussed intellectually. Your job should be to maintain the peace to some degree, basically.
When others post computer generated pic of Bush snorting smack and saying "look at him snort smack, re-elect a drugy?", I'll delete that to.
For god's sakes why? Yes it will offend me, but that's why I read that forum: to find out about the opinions of those that I don't agree with. I don't want you or anyone else to sugar coat it because you are afraid that someone will be offended! That's their opinion, wellcookedfetus. I know it's not true. If I want evidence from the guy that posts a picture of GWB snorting coke, I'll ask/demand it from them myself. I don't need you to hold my hand & spoon feed me or the other members, sir.
Your stating the truth without evidence and appealing to imagery was pretty bad statement. Sorry it is not true until you prove it true, and based on your imagery you have a lot to prove.
First, I never stated that it was true, wellcookedfetus. You are accusing me of something that I did not do. In fact, I was asking a rhetorical question & commenting that if true, some people
could be looking at prison time. After that, I posted pics & humor. Obviously, you don't know the difference.
Second, I should not have to prove anything, wellcookedfetus. That is not what the political forum is about. If you are so hot for the truth, wellcooked fetus, then you should try to find it in official government records, by way of the Freedom Of Information Act. Or at least watch the goings on of the government at C-span, with an open mind and a large dose of skepticism of
both parties. That skepticism should also be applied to
all sides of the media, as well as the many political action groups that are constantly jockeying for power over others, by way of bills & proposed amendments.
Your stating the truth without evidence and appealing to imagery was pretty bad statement. .
Again, I
did not make
any statements saying that they are absolutely forged documents. I
NEVER said that!
Sorry it is not true until you prove it true, and based on your imagery you have a lot to prove.
I WAS NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANYTHING AS BEING FACTUAL WITH THOSE PICS! ! !
If you want to learn how to make proper arguments I recommend readings on critical reasoning skills and fallacies, general philosophy also helps
My God man, based on what you have written so far, I believe that any reasoning person would suggest that it is you who needs take a remedial course in critical reasoning!
As far as my ability to make proper arguments, I think that what I have written in this argument with you proves that you could learn volumes about philosophy, reasoning skills, ect.. from me, guy.
Your link must be broken because, unless you think the whole subforum supports your statement?
Honestly, wellcooked, I don't know what the hell you mean by this one. I'm damn good at deciphering gibberish of idiots, but that one takes the cake!
Besides, I'm just tired of your retarded arguments. Yes, I guess that I just flamed you a bit, but what the hell! At least there is plenty of proof, that you have so willingly provided.
............................
