Are we using the same definition of “possible” here? To my mind, you can have an argument where it is possible for both sides to win, given mitigating circumstances. Or are you using “possible” in some sort of specialized, predestination sense?
It’s the classical “possible”.
Study what? Nutjobbery? I’ve already seen enough posters actually schooled in logic and philosophy roll their eyes at your mile high bullshit to know that what I sense of your ramblings is on the mark. You are a delusional egomaniac. Pretty amusing actually, having a blowhard like you talk down to me.
Well played, sir.
Jesus, are you kids still playing this video game? Turn off the vid, go outside and shoot some hoops or take the dog for a walk. I have a hard time seeing how either of the principals is worthy of this much drama, except insofar as their respective attempts to draw it upon themselves. “Double, double, toile and trouble/Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble.” May Liberal play MacBeth to pseudotriton ruber ruber’s Banquo. Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.[right]-- MacBeth, Act V, Scene 5.[/right]
Stranger
No-one ever gets beyond Thunderdome.
What utter bollocks. Not every situation is so black and white that only one outcome is possible, and that a foregone conclusion. There are many subjects upon which different people may argue on different days, and different POVs “win” depending on various variables, including the audience and the skill of the arguer(s). I made my living for years arguing towards a decisional outcome, and in no case would I say that my having won (or lost) meant that the other side could not possibly have won (or lost).
Furthermore, and as you seem completely unaware, there are sound reasons to avoid, leave, or concede an argument that have nothing to do with the chances you could eventually “win.” You have “won” your argument with prr by buying him off, but I would submit your “win” has cost you measurably in what others think of you and/or your tactics. If someone other than you had had the wisdom and the lack of arrogance to back down from that pissing contest, they might have “lost” the argument. That doesn’ t mean they could not have “won,” as you did, if they were willing to pay the same price (literally and metaphorically). It would just mean they were wiser than you.
And you bitch about me being mean to you, implying that I hurt your feelings and that I never say anything nice to or about you. But then you bitch about badchad ignoring you completely. What the hell is it you want? Maybe he doesn’t have anything nice to say to or about you either and he’s just better at keeping his yap shut than I am.
Actually, you seem to have missed the point made. I did not claim that the decisions would be consistent; I merely pointed out that we were not going to pay any attention to charges of inconsistency. This is a new situation and we may very well decide that our approach in one instance led to unintended consequences so that we will treat any similar situation differently. Rather than cower before charges of inconsistency, (or displaying the insanity of repeating the same action and hoping for a different outcome), we may decide to take a different tack if this sort of silliness appears on the board in the future.
Just out of vulgar curiousity, if p r r is still (as far as the mods are concerned) a member in good standing, will he be banned if he sneaks back in as a sock?
I would expect that, if he simply starts posting again next month to the effect that “$500 wasn’t enough; fuck y’all” then the mods would be under no obligation to regard this as other than a self-imposed hiatus. Yes?
I can post this in ATMB if you prefer, or let me know if it is none of my business.
Regards,
Shodan
Why not? It’s a marketplace of ideas. We’re not using coercion here, just personal honor. I’m not pleased Lib decided to exercise the power of the wallet in this fashion, I hate silencing people. But it really does seem to be a legitimate use of his political philosophy. I’m curious as to if PRR will hold up to it. This will be a fascinating case study over time.
I rather suspect that nuanced interpretations of the word “win” may be just as operative as nuanced interpretations of the word “possible.”
And I still don’t know what’s supposed to happen if Aeschines’s Doomsday Clock actually goes off on schedule…
That’s not even true in mathematics.
Not foregone, postgone. You can’t draw a conclusion before stating a premise. Only one outcome is ever possible unless you want to posit multiple parallel universes for which there is no empirical evidence.
What, you’re not my friend anymore?
I want you to stop being a nagging bitch, and I want Badchad to respond to my arguments.
That much is certain.
He can no longer have babies…?
Possible means not necessarily impossible.
Well, not a logical argument. But it is certainly possible that a human interaction can have an outcome that is a win for everyone. In fact, I outlined exactly what PRR could do to make that happen. It’s in this thread, buried under all the cacophony. Search for “Christendom”.
Sorry, MrDibble, that wasn’t the right search term. Here’s the post. It’s at the end.
Thanks for the clarification. The phrasing of your earlier remark ("We will also refuse to be held to some petty charge of ‘inconsistency’ ") gave me the impression that you did not consider such a charge to be valid. It hadn’t occurred to me that you were simply declaring your intent to ignore criticism on the subject. Sorry about the confusion; I hadn’t been aware that the board rules were so malleable.
I was declaring our intent to ignore foolish criticism based on the hobgoblins of little minds. 
Don’t you be talking trash about hobgoblins. You say you won’t cower, but hobgoblins say you cower.
COWER BEFORE HOBGOBLINS!
Fucking duh. You start with a premise, but there is not necessarily any foregone conclusion to be drawn from the premise alone – especially when you are speaking about something as subjective as successful argument.
Ah, hard determinism. I fail to see how you can reconcile this with political libertarian or Christianity, both of which are obviously at odds with it. Not that I am inviting you to try; I couldn’t care less how you rationalize your own personal philosophical inconsistencies and I laugh as I watch you rationalize your own bad behavior.
I was NEVER your friend. I don’t like you because you are vicious to people, and then you apologize, minimize, or kiss their ass. I don’t respect you because you lack the courage of your own avowed convictions. I spend quite a bit of time ignoring your crackpot theories and your insincere niceties alternating with amazing meanspiritedness, and only post when the outrageousness or contemptibility of your words or actions becomes so amazing as to provoke me to say something.
Oh, I see! You want to choose the sort of interaction your receive! You want to spew invective all over the Boards like you did here (Post #155) and here (Post #56) and yet have people interact with you with a degree of courtesy that is on your part completely optional. No dice. If you act like a contemptible asshole, buying people off then acting like you’ve done some service, screaming at people and then minimizing your actions --your screed against ETF was some “mild and friendly ribbbing” (!) – then “nagging bitch” is what you’re going to get. Don’t like it? Tough. Your words are vicious and your actions contemptible, and shutting me up wouldn’t change either of those things, even if you were able to buy my silence as easily as you did prr’s.