Re: chinese food and illegal immigration

On Sun, 17 May 2009 06:43:13 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beldinyyz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Pepe Papon" <hitmeister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:muvu05pl87nlhiuc90kdop89lri5jcu381@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 15 May 2009 12:27:26 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beldinyyz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As if I care about that argument. You can rant until your fingers
bleed, and it won't change the fact that my scores are higher than
yours. Sorry.
Seth the shithead, ladies and gentlemen.
I show him that more happens than his "best case claimed" and his response
is a chiildlike "well who cares about that"

Sorry, Einstein, but I stopped caring long ago whether or not you
believe me. The good news is that none of your so-called logic nor
name-calling will change my test scores even a fraction of a point.


How the hell did you get through high school?


Quite well, indeed, thanks. Once again, your thinking is at odds
with reality.



I can't help but wonder why the idea of taking tests and posting
results is so important to you. I personally feel that posting test
scores and other credentials that designed to impress is bad form,
which is why I haven't done it.
Because it eliminates the ability to bull***.

I don't bull***. You can believe me or not. Your choice.
That statement is in denial of evidence already noted.

The only evidence is in your imagination, schmucko.



But let's just say, purely hypothetically, that I agreed to go through
with this, we both took the test, and I scored significantly higher
than you. What would that change? Would your behavior be any
different? Would you admit your stupidity in belittling the
intelligence of someone brighter than you are? Would you seek the
mental health care that you so desperately need?
Pepe, at this point, you've demonstrated so little understanding of logic,
you're clearly not better educated in logic than anyone. You have a
degree,
so you went to school, but damn, how much have you forgotten?
You need serious instruction, as you've fucked up so much in basic logic.

Just as I thought - it wouldn't change your behavior at all.
*** for brains, yet AGAIN your total lack of reading comprehension shows
you're an idiot.
NOW it's too late, because NOW you've demonstrated you're a moron.
At the TIME it wouldn't be too late.
So your premise was WRONG, retard boy.

Speaking of poor reading comprehension, you probably haven't noticed
that your replies were totally non-responsive to what I wrote. Wait
- don't tell me, let me guess, you'll deny that it's true and call me
stupid for pointing it out.


Let me say this again. I don't
assume I'm smarter than you. There's massive evidence I understand logic
better than you.

Correction: there's lots and lots of evidence that you *believe* you
understand logic better than me.
No, there's evidence you understand it very little. It all comes from your
POSTS, retard boy.

Correction: It all comes from what you imagine you see or what you
fail to see in my POSTS.


You have, in previous posts, pointed to my assertion that my IQ is
higher than yours as an unstated assumption, which, of course, it's
not. That's the one and only example you've ever come up with of me
using an unstated assumption, and as usual, you were wrong.
No, *** for brains.
Go pull up a cite, I'm rather certain you fucked up what I actually said
there.
And I know for a fact, in THIS thread, I've explained repeatedly what an
unstated assumption is, and YOU'RE too stupid to grasp it.

There you go, talking out of your ass again. You want to believe
that I don't know what it is, so you imagine things and then state
them as if they were fact.
No, shithead. You posted a definition of one that was WRONG.
Christ alfuckingmighty. How stupid are you? YOU post something that's
factually INCORRECT, and you're too stupid to see that it means you're
WRONG.
Amazing, Pepe.

Must be my alleged dementia, but I don't recall that ever happening. I
do recall you claiming that it happened, however.

Those are piss poor examples for a number of reasons, not the least of
which was that I admitted that I made an error in that argument.


Seth, are you DRUNK?
It doesn't matter that you REALIZED after the fact that your logic was
bad.
When you MADE the argument, you used incorrect logic.
That's my statement, and it's a documented fact.

Do you believe that the only possible reason for an error is the
failure to understand logic?
That kind of error, yes.
It's an error of poor logic.

Perfect example of your inability to think outside your limited little
box. I wonder why it's so difficult for you to imagine that a human
being can become tired, bored, distracted, careless, or any number of
other things that could cause a momentary brain fart.


You're a liar. We both know that you would have chosen to disbelieve
me no matter when I stated a number or what number I stated.

Am I liar?
At the poker table, sure. It's part of the game.
Did I lie just now? No.
If you stated your IQ was, say, 140, I'd have taken it. I'd point out
there's a margin of error in all tests. If you said 150, I'd still have
taken it. 160+ I'd want proof.

You could very easily be lying. And I think you are.
Pepe, please. You've demonstrated repeatedly. You don't think.
However, pay for a polygraph. I'll take it and pass.

The only chance that it could be worth the investment would be if I
actually cared.

OTOH, I'll go ahead and join MENSA and post a copy of my membership
card if you'll pay for the test score transcripts and the membership
dues.


Denis Leary gave a good definition of *** once. I don't qualify.

The unstated assumption here is that, Denis Leary is some sort of
authority on the definition of that particular word. Good work, Mr.
Self-Proclaimed Logic Expert.
Well, he wrote a hit song about it. You, being a music industry
professional, have a higher than average chance of being familiar with it.
Without agreements on definitions, no logic is possible, so we can't argue
about whether I'm an *** without agreeing on the definition of
***.
I gave you my definition. You are free to disregard it, but that then
takes
the topic off the table.

I'm not arguing that you're an ***. I'm calling you one. See
the difference?
So you're making a statement without evidence. Yeah, that's about your
speed.

No, you idiot. I have all the evidence I need ri call you an ***.
I realize this is a difficult concept for you to wrap your brain
around, but we don't need to agree on a definition.

You can delude yourself all
you want about your noble motives for insulting people, but the fact
is that you simply enjoy insulting people. And it's hard to think of
another plausible reason for that other than precisely because it
puts you in that superior position you want to imagine yourself in.

Well, we've established it's hard for you to think, period.

No, we've established that you desperately want to believe this.

I've stated my
reason. I care about the issues I discuss.

People in denial frequently create justifications for all sorts of
inappropriate behavior.


So, you're acting like a schmuck to increase the readership of RGP?
And you're not even the Ass Administrator! Your benevolence is
touching.
No, I'm not trying to increase the readership.
Damn, how DO you survive when you can't understand basic sentences. I'm
trying to get people to pay attention to topics and remember the facts by
entertaining them while educating them.
Not you, of course, because you won't learn.

You're almost correct here. I won't learn from someone who's
teaching nonsense. That would be you.
There's no nonsense in this or any other post authored by me, apart from
overt humorous ones.

None that you're willing or able to recognize, anyway.



They would have figured out without your "help". No matter how hard
you try to cover it up with ll your verbal calisthenics, it still
boils down to the fact that all you're doing is using an ad hominem
argument.
Nope. It's never been 'all' I do. There are always facts right there with
the insults. The insults motivate people to go see for themselves, to try
and turn it back on me. The facts make it very difficult for them to do
so.
"You're wrong, because you're a shithead" Ad hom.
"You're a shithead, because you believe "X, "and it isn't true because "
Beldinism.

And your hope is that people will ignore your target in future
discussions because you've convinced people he's stupid or crazy.
Classic ad hominem, no matter how you try and dress it up.
No, I hope they will UNDERSTAND my target is an idiot and see the errors
quickly.

But wait - you said that when you call someone a retard, it doesn't
mean they're retarded in general, just that they made a retarded
mistake. How would a mistake in one debate be relevant to a mistake
in another, independent debate? Suppose, say, Barack Obama, a
well-known poker hobbyist were to join in a debate in this ng. Would
you be trying help the rest of us poor, dumb posters to understand
that he's an idiot because you disagreed with his choice of VP?


No, how fair of me. I defend people when they're correct. Because it's the
correct and fair thing to do.


Why? An amazing thing. I strongly believe you should be on the side of
right.

You could easily accomplish that by simply stating your argument. But
you routinely resort to childish name-calling.
Not childish. And not merely.

Name-calling is childish. If you can't see that simple, obvious fact,
you're either incredibly stupid or in serious denial.
Name calling is POLITICS.
People react to it.

People react to a lot of things. That's a pretty poor
rationalization for childish behavior.


Your lack of logic has shown itself repeatedly in this thread.
Go read Smullyan. Go take a refresher course. Then come back and lecture
me.

Nothing of the sort has occurred, even remotely. Your assertions that
it has are worse than meaningless. They show a severe disconnect
with reality on your part.
The reality of you not understanding basic logic terms, and the rules of
logic?
That reality?

No, the reality that you come across like a typical young punk who's
take a few courses and thinks he knows a whole lot more than he
actually does, even to the point of belittling those with superior
intelligence and experience.


When you call someone a retard or a shithead, you're attacking the
person. How much more obvious could it be?
I'm attacking the person for being a retard right THEN.
They aren't a retard all the TIME.

Anyone who smokes is a retard. It says right on the package, "This *** will
kill you" and they buy it and use it anyway.

That doesn't mean they can't be brilliant in some other area.

Then your previously stated justification for name-calling is
nonsense, not that this comes as a suprise. You said you do it to
alert people as to who the idiots are for future debates. Momentary
retardation at some point in the past is irrelevant to future debates
on unrelated topics.


Here's the sad part - you and I both like logical debate. If you
weren't so childish about it and simply attacked ideas by
dispassionately stating your counterarguments, we might actually be
able to have some interesting and informative threads. But with your
insistence on belittling your opponents, and possible debate quickly
degenerates into a flame war and pissing contest.
Flame wars are a fact of computer-facilitated discussion, and it has beem
thus for decades. Once the heat of a topic passes the point of ignition,
it's a done deal.

I said nothing about flame wars in general. I'm talking about a
specific situation over which you have control. Deflecting the point
to a lecture on flame wars in general is a fine way of avoiding
responsibility for your behavior.

I
twist the tail of the people presenting those ideas, but only during the
thread. I don't go after them every time they post, no matter the topic.
It's not about the people, it's about the idiotic ideas presented.
Global warming denialists. Gay rights denialists. Women's rights
denialists.
Abortion rights denialists. Evolution denialists. "Intelligent design"
advocates.

And on the other side
Obamaholics. Gun confiscationists. Anti-nuclear power nuts. Tree-huggers.
Government medicine advocates. Social Security forever fiends.

In other words, Ideas that Beldin agrees with are correct, and ideas
that Beldin disagrees with: idiotic.

You, as usual, are screwing up cause and effect. Ideas that are solid and
backed by strong evidence, vs ideas that aren't.

You, as usual, miss the point <reading comprehension flame deleted>.
You believe that there's only one correct view on any given issue and
that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.


There's no ego here.

Laughable.

I don't get involved with things that are a matter of
opinion.

Of course not. There are no opinions involved in politics. <guffaw>

You assume that the short-term poll results are the measuring stick
for his decision. You refuse to recognize that other, far more
important considerations may have come into play. You fail to even
consider the possibility that he and his team of experienced,
political experts know more that you, even in hindsight when you can
see that they accomplished exactly what they set out to do. Not only
is that illogical, it's absurd to the point of being delusional.
No, Pepe, you're failing logic yet again. They didn't accomplish what they
set out to do. They had a very polarizing campaign. They have polarized the
Republicans so much that his pledge of bipartisanship is nearly toast, even
though he's been trying very hard to fix that by appointing Republicans.

Obama polarized the Repubicans? You mean the McCain campaign and the
Republican Party had nothing to do with it? Do you think that
appointing that known Republican hate-magnet otherwise known as
Hillary would have made the election *less* polarizing?

He
made it possible for McCain to win. So he had to run the campaign that gave
him the best chance of winning. How DO you play poker successfully, thinking
one level deep all the time.

I dunno, but it's documented that I've done pretty well. One might
expect that, when your judgment is at odds with reality as often as
yours is, that you'd figure out that it's time to rethink your
judgments.

You've created your own, personal definition of "retard". I highly
intelligent individual is never a retard. At worst, he made a bad
mistake. Smart people do make mistakes.
No, I use the colloquial definition of "retard". Someone who did something
stupid.

That usage is colloquial for children and teenagers. Intelligent,
educated adults don't speak that way.

It should be obvious I'm not accusing him of being mentally handicapped to
the point of actual retardation. He fucked up something simple. Something
that should be obvious.

The only thing obvious is that you contiinue to insist that you know
more about presidential politics than the winner of the presidential
elections and his team of experienced advisors, just like you think
you know more about country songs than a professional level country
songwriter. But no ego there.

And your unstated assumption that the decision should be measured on
the immediate results has no validity.
Of course it does. That's the purpose for picking the VP then.

No, the purpose for picking the VP is to form a team to win the
election and then govern effectively. Short-term poll bounces are
hardly the measuring stick.

To help win the election. Without winning the election, nothing else
matters.
John didn't pick Sarah because she was a brilliant political mind, he picked
her because Obama didn't pick Hillary.

Sarah gave McCain a nice short-term poll bounce, and as time went on,
she became a drag on the campaign. Allowing McCain to choose her was
hardly a detriment to Obama. She was such a disaster that, for all
we know, Obama could have intentionally suckered McCain into choosing
her.

Correction: You've expressed your opinion throughout the thread. Your
opinion is at variance with the facts, as is so often the case with
you.
No, *** for brains. When I cite you doing it, and document your own
words,
it isn't opinion. Now i realize you've clearly gone over the edge into
dimentia, so you need a nursemaid, not to mention someone to explain these
little things to you, and I'm sorry for your loss.

Once again, such stupidity accomplishes nothing but turn any possible
debate into a pissing contest.
Your stupidity? Yeah, it does kinda remove rational discussion from the
table, when you can't understand it.

Translation: blah, blah, blah.
--
~ Seth Jackson

MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
.