Also QFT.
Wrong. Even for the pit, that was inexcusably weak.
Do better.
I appreciate attempt at the feedback, but I’m afraid I don’t regard you as a reliable critic.
And thank-you for sharing your regards.
High praise indeed.
Shiiiiiiiit, I hope Bricker stays and keeps posting. I appreciate his point of view, his legal arguments, logic and Catholic guilt. I disagree with most of it to be sure, but will vociferously argue he makes the board better, and certainly helps me partially understand some of the bat shit logic-less crazy that is out there.
Not to poison the well, but Bricker will also generally respond to a straightforward question with at least his strictly legalistic interpretation. For example, Bricker, do you agree that separating asylum seeking minor children from their parents is a worthwhile deterrent to illegal immigration, or is it a morally and spiritually bankrupt move against what we freedom loving nation of immigrants stand for?
Or maybe a different question: trump effectively decided to enforce this law, he could also “end” the enforcement with a phone call. So, does trump “own” this or is it the democratic party’s fault?
The argument ground to a halt on both sides over the word “inhumane”. You had a valid point that hyperbole can derail discussions, however, in this case it so happened that your own words matched the definition of the word you had chosen to dismiss as hyperbolic. It would have been better to concede that you had chosen a bad example and make your case over again.
Which I have now done.
Well it took a while Bricker, but good job on back-peddaling. Sincerely. Here’s the post:
Etymology: “Cruel and inhuman punishment”. The two words are in the same ballpark to this native speaker. “Cruel” is fairly strong. “Lacking compassion” is milder.
In contrast, characterizing the shelters where 1500 children are crammed in as concentration camps would be hyperbolic to my ear, even if true in a literal sense.
Some of the treatment of under-5s could be causing toxic stress to the brain, since employees can neither touch the children to comfort them nor call in their parents. The intentional infliction of such developmental issues and the dismissal of well founded concerns from health care professionals strikes me as pretty brutal/unnecessarily cruel/inhumane, as consequences may be life-long while necessity is weak. It’s not like driving spikes into fingernails. But c’mon: kids.
No, he didn’t have a valid point there. What he had was a tangential point. He latched onto one word and used that to hijack the thread to be about that rather than the actual meaning of the statements made. By doing so, he redirects the argument towards something he can defend. It’s just a method of goalpost moving.
Making a true statement doesn’t inherently mean that the person has a point. The question is whether that true statement is relevant, or an attempt to deflect.
It’s the reason I don’t like Bricker. He constantly uses dishonest tactics. Even that Socratic method someone tries to defend upthread is not the Socratic method, but strawmanning and redirecting the conversation. The Socratic method is someone asking an expert a question and the expert helping them figure it out for themselves by asking questions. That’s not what he does.
You don’t get points for using a dishonest tactic, and then pulling back when everyone calls you on it, if you then go back and do the same things over and over again. You clearly are just riding on the apology to make you look better.
Watch again the next time he jumps on a single word and hijacks the entire topic. Apologizing and pulling back means nothing if you don’t stop doing it.
Stop commending him for playing his little game. The backpedaling is as calculated as the rest.
If I see Bricker doing it again, I will call him on it. The poster I associate with that activity as a repeat tactic is Hurricane Ditka.
Hey, I thought this thread would be worse than it was.
FWIW, not like Trump. Not even close, approaching, or becoming more like. Same old Bricker though.
He also thinks the MMPI test has scientific validity.
Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. He dismissed the Myers-Briggs naysayers with his usual lofty condescension, along with liberal use of the forehead-slapping emoticon to show how exasperated he is with his intellectual inferiors (i.e., us).
BigT, I haven’t followed the discussions closely enough to know if Bricker consistently follows the pattern that you have pointed out but it is one that annoys me to no end in public discourse. It’s so destructive that it needs to be highlighted whenever it’s being used.
If there is one thing about the Trump years that I’d consider a (possibly, hopefully) regenerative effect, it’s the renewed awareness of the frailty of democracy and everything that makes it work.
Is that really what your faith teaches?
Septimus is a clown. Bricker, on the evidence of his posts, which is all we have to judge by, is nothing at all like Donald Trump, nor is he becoming more like him.
Well, good, because that was some waist-deep bullshit you were wading through and trying to pull everyone else into. Whatever motivated you to do it that time–too much booze, a bad Sunday, sheer perverse pedantry–I hope you avoid it going forward.
“Avoid” is overly restrictive. I don’t think that term applies to this situation.