Thursday, January 24, 2019
Because there is a significant chance that this will get deleted, I'm preserving it here and with context
Dans, comment/"real world" example/"question"
"Craig, I GET that you think you answered the question asked of you. You didn't. Not in the real world. It's just another example of your inability to read my words and reach the conclusion/point I was making. For your sake, then, I'm just deleting your comments because, really, it's embarrassing for you.
I get that you don't understand it, but it's reality, nonetheless. You'll just have to trust me on this.
You have not answered the question and you are not understanding my words (i.e., when you say, "you're saying THIS," I'm literally not saying that, instead, you're misunderstanding.
Look, Craig, I'll give you one more chance. Here's a story. See if you can answer the question correctly.
Fido the dog live next door to Farmer Bob. One day farmer Bob was talking to the neighbors and everybody from the front porch. Farmer Bob said, "dogs are evil. They just want to kill everything. Don't trust dogs."
Fido responded (because Fido was a talking dog), "well I'm not 'all dogs' but I am a dog and I don't want to kill. I'm not evil. None of the dogs that I know are evil or want to kill. None of the books that I've ever read for data that I've ever researched (because Fido was also literate and well-informed) suggest that dogs want to kill. Sure, there might be an outlier that only wants to kill and wants to be evil, but there's nothing like any data or suggestion that this is a common trait of dogs."
Someone later asked Fido, "so did you think farmer Bob was talking about you?" Fido responded, "no. Clearly he was not speaking about me specifically. He was literally speaking about dogs, of which I am a part."
Now the question Craig. And look, I'll even give you the right answer to make it easier for you.
Did Fido the dog think that farmer Bob was talking about him specifically?
The only right answer from a factual real world point of view is...
No.
No Fido did NOT think that farmer Bob was talking about him specifically. Indeed, Fido recognized the reality (it was not an opinion just the reality of it) that farmer Bob was speaking specifically of the group, Dogs, because that's what Bob literally said. That isn't what Fido THOUGHT, it was reality. And reality is that Fido was part of that group, dogs and he was familiar with that group, Dogs. And he spoke from that place of knowing about the group farmer Bob was literally speaking about. But the only correct answer to the question is no, Fido did not think farmer Bob was speaking specifically of him. Can you answer that question correctly? It's a simple... a question one word answer will suffice."
My answer/response.
Except I have answered the question, and I've demonstrated that I have. Except I'm not saying "You said this...", I'm actually quoting your exact words, not my interpretation of the words.
The only right answer in the real word is that Fido is a freaking dog and as such is not capable of complex thought, or of expressing complex thought. You see when you try to suggest that an example that uses a "talking dog", is a "real world" example, you negate the entire example. The right answer in you unreal world hypothetical is no. It's not no because you've demonstrated factually that no is the right answer. It's no because you've announced that no is the only answer you will accept, based on your own subjective criteria.
I've answered your question. I've stated my opinion based on the content of the post you wrote. The problem you have is that you want me to "prove" my opinion is objectively right. But it's an opinion, it can't be proven right or wrong.
I've based my opinion on how you have responded to many posts over a long period of time. This is just one more example of you responding to a post written about a group of people in general, in terms that revolve around you and the relatively small group of people you know.
Beyond that, you've made claims in your screed that, in one case you haven't backed up, and in another case I've demonstrated that you claim is inaccurate.
But, I guess it's easier to hector me about my expressing of an opinion, than it is to deal with areas where you're claims don't match reality.
I have to note your glaring inconsistency, regarding your expectations of others answering your questions, with your actions in answering other peoples questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The original comment that started all this BS.
"One chance, Craig. Just the one. I literally never said that this post was about me. In fact, I literally said Dover all sorts of liberals oh, just that I did not know any who thought this way. So clearly, it should be quite obvious that I was not thinking that this post my Stan was about me. There is nothing in what I said that suggests that and my literal words clarify that this is NOT what I think.
Do you understand that reality?"
My original answer to the exact, specific question that was asked.
"You’re right, that’s what you said. You literally said “But I know of none. That’s not our reasoning.”. You literally cast your response as “I and folks like me...” and “I/we don’t think..,”. “We make it clear...” . You further respond with “I support...” and “I support...”."
As I was putting this together, I noticed that the entire premise of Dan's anger was based on his inability/unwillingness to understand/acknowledge what I actually said, as opposed to what he wanted to hear me say.
"One chance, Craig. Just the one. I literally never said that this post was about me."
One chance Dan. Do you realize that I literally never said what you claim I said? Do you understand that in the real world, I just literally, demonstrably didn't say that? Do you realize that the words "Dan said that he thinks the post is about him." did not ever appear anywhere? Do you understand that I am expressing an opinion based on your actions and your words?
Did you really "misunderstand" my comment? Or did you choose to attribute to me something I never said, to give you a diversion to avoid your slip up on your flat tax claim?
This is the second time this week, you've misunderstood/misrepresented/twisted something I've said and used it to accuse me of not being able to comprehend your lofty rhetoric.
What I actually said.
"It’s interesting that you always seem to assume these kinds of posts are about you."
What Dan says I said. He is effectively claiming that I specifically said that he "said that this post was about me" (me meaning Dan).
The demonstrable reality, is that his version of what I said bears little relationship to reality.
FYI,
The sole and entire purpose of this post and comment is to provide the text and the context of a conversation happening elsewhere. A conversation that might be deleted and misrepresented.
Because of that I will not allow any further comments on this thread.
Dan, If you want to address this, do it at your blog, don't delete the comments copied here, and restore what you've deleted.
Feo, You have nothing to contribute to this post specifically.
I know that you said you won't allow further comments here, but as what I'm about to say would get deleted at Dan's (as is so likely), I'll try nonetheless.
Dan likes to defend against certain accusations with, "But I never said that." referring to his exact words said and not said. But what he won't acknowledge is that what he does say and do expresses a definite attitude or position nonetheless. One example from that post is his constant insistence that the Bible isn't a rule book, while then saying things like "the Bible (clearly) teaches.." This says, whether he wants to admit or acknowledge it or not, is that he rejects some teachings while insisting other carry the impact of rules. And even if we all concede that we each see teachings differently, those we abide are then rules nonetheless. Supporting this is the fact that at no time does Dan say of teachings he abides that they are not binding in any way...even on his own self.
This, again, is just to point out that one can "say" something without specifically stating it in only one way and one way only. Dan says much he later denies having said, because as I've pointed out so often, he simply doesn't like how his own words are reflected back to him in the conclusions reached by so many.
This equivocating by him is likely the main reason why so many now refuse to engage with him at all. It's not because they misunderstand him, but because they understand him perfectly and he can't dance around the implications of his own words.
Ironically (because he loves irony), his goofy little stories meant to clarify demonstrate his own inability to understand, or possibly a determined and purposeful intention to distort the positions and responses of his opponents. Hard to tell with him, given the falseness so inherent in the vast majority of what he says...intentional or otherwise.
My suspicion was partially correct. The comments containing that answer to the "real life talking dog" scenario were deleted. So far they haven't been misrepresented. I suspect they will, but so far they haven't.
Fear of reality is apparently a powerful thing.
Art, as it’s germane I’ll leave your comment.
You’re right that he often retreats behind (as in this case) some form of the “I didn’t use those exact words, therefore I didn’t actually say...” defense. Or, also in this case, he’s lied about what I actually said in order to attack me for doing exactly what he’s done.
The constant double standard gets old, but I’m determined to treat him as unfairly as I can compared to how he treats me.
"unfairly" or did you mean to say "fairly"?
No, I meant unfairly. If I was treating him fairly, I’d capriciously delete his comments and misreport what they said.
FYI, I accidentally deleted one of your comments.
See the other thread for an example of unfairly.
Don't remember what my accidentally deleted comment was. No worries.
It was short, that’s all I remember.
Post a Comment