Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

starhawks wrote:
using pretentious quips because you can't think of a good response? understandable

I'm guessing that you don't appreciate the irony here.

I'm guessing you didn't realize I intentionally made it ironic...but I'm done with this, unless you want to actually make a point about the topic

starhawks wrote:I'm guessing you didn't realize I intentionally made it ironic...

So you knowingly responded with a pretentious quip, in lieu of a "good" response, in order to illustrate the intellectual rigor of your position?

That doesn't seem like a solid frame for an argument.

starhawks wrote:
but I'm done with this, unless you want to actually make a point about the topic

Its tired nonsense predicated on appeals to vague moral concepts rather than sound policy, and people that take it is a well-reasoned political position should be ashamed of themselves.

dogma wrote:
But, of course, biccat is free to generalize with respect to the OWS movement, and really anyone he doesn't like.

Because conservatives are persecuted, or something.

So your argument, like the one you're objecting to, is predicated on a strawman.

I don't know if election season has gotten to you, or what. But your post quality has degraded massively over the last month or so, its really very sad because you're capable of so much more.

dogma wrote:
To this day I'm amazed that arguments from entitlement have become such pervasive strawmen.

Or an example of banks having an excessive market presence, it can go either way.

Of course, recognizing that would require uncertainty, and no one likes being uncertain; its far too difficult.

dogma wrote:
Or gman1401 will be very upset.

OWS, to my knowledge, has not advocated "tax equality", whatever that is.


LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!

dogma wrote:
We're arguing now? I thought we were trading platitudes in order to make ourselves feel better.

dogma wrote:Well, they are moral paragons.

That being said, much of what OWS seems to want would be awful for the economy. If they could limit their message to "Reform banking regulation!" they would be better off.

dogma wrote:
Well, they are advocating banking reform, which is fine and likely to carry with many people. Its all the other things they're advocating, and the way they're advocating them, which are the problem.

dogma wrote:
Porn stars moan while they work.

@Starhawks, I don't think he has many constructive points to make on the topic judging by his posts so far...

gman1401 wrote:
@Starhawks, I don't think he has many constructive points to make on the topic judging by his posts so far...

Read: dogma writes things that make me upset.

dogma wrote:I'm quite confident in my understanding of the strawman fallacy. It is, simplified, any argument against a misrepresented position.

Ah, I see the problem. You think I'm arguing against a misrepresented position. Allow me to be clear: the OWS protestors have clearly shown that they are anti-freedom, in terms of free speech, equal protection and religious freedom (these beliefs are actually pretty pervasive in the American Left, but we'll put them aside for now). This is dangerous. People who support this rhetoric are dangerous enablers.

I actually find it particularly amusing that you attack people who criticize OWS for using "strawmen" arguments (your standard refrain when you can't come up with a legitimate criticism, or so it seems), yet let the arguments against "anti-protestors" stand. Because they're totally not strawmen arguments.

Your hypocrisy and double standards are glaring, yet expected.

dogma wrote:

gman1401 wrote:
@Starhawks, I don't think he has many constructive points to make on the topic judging by his posts so far...

Read: dogma writes things that make me upset.

Yeah I would've posted my response sooner but I was too busy crying and calling my mom.

That will be quite enough, warnings will be issued.