…
It is as correct as saying “all dogs are mammals” is correct.
I’ve read the thread (entirely too many times). And everytime I read it, I reached the one conclusion that you insist is wrong. I’m not trying to trick you, honest. My question is not that complicated. Seems like you could easily eliminate the confusion by answering the question.
Do I take that as a YES?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8951865&postcount=116
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8951923&postcount=122
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8951971&postcount=127
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8952075&postcount=134
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8953680&postcount=146
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8954347&postcount=152
All posts where I say I have abandoned that position. Again, why are you pressing this?
SHIT. No. I meant to say “It is correct if saying *some *dogs are mammal is correct.” That should be clear from my previous posts.
oh my god what the fuck is wrong with you guys.
As I understand it, you now then claim
“Some explanations for bad behavior are excuses”
and you do not claim the above statement is the equivalent of “Explanations for bad behavior are excuses”. Furthermore, this latter statement is incorrect.
I have no arguement with these positions, assuming I have stated them correctly.
Please note the EVERYONE who has been argueing with you believes you were claiming these two statements to be equivalent. You might consider that if EVERYONE was in disagreement with you, perhaps you were unclear.
I am outta here.
Right.
I don’t believe **Miller **does. I could be wrong. At least, he never accused me of equating the two.
It would oblige me no end if just one of the arguers could point out where I made such a claim.
The longer I live the more I am starting be beleive in Male PMS.
So, **you with the face **is off the hook?
seriously!!! Look how no one else is posting anymore. Its like when a child throws a temper tantrum you just have to ignore it until they settle down.
Because I want to make absolutely positively sure that I’m understanding you correctly before I make judgements about your intelligence and your debating skills. That’s why.
You did say you wanted to be friends, right? Okay then.
Then why did you not see those posts in the numerous times you read the thread? Serious question, no intent to snark.
I do, I really do.
I never really doubted it. No kidding.
You want the honest truth? Straight no chaser?
- You started claiming in post #116 that people were misunderstanding you. You complained that you had amended prior statements about explanations for bad behavior being equivalent to excuses. You had abandoned that position and how dare us for not seeing it!
And yet when asked to point out where you actually changed your position, you provided nothing except indignation and hand waving.
- In post 116, you said you had changed your position to “An excuse is an explanation of bad behavior, by definition.” But then in a latter post (#134) you wrote “All explanations are excuses if and only if all explanations and explanations for bad behavior mean the same thing.”
Whether you are aware of it or not, this latter statement suggests that you haven’t backed away from your original statement at all. That’s why people are arguing with you and ignoring your claims that you abandoned whatever you keep saying you abandoned.
And your refusal to address requests for clarification in a straightforward manner has only hurt your case, not helped.
Whenever I get into a real life argument with face, which happens almost every time we visit each other, I quickly begin crying, throwing things (like fists), then finishing off with a round of “I HATE YOU, BITCH!” and “THAT’S WHY YOU LOOK LIKE MICHAEL JACKSON!!” While she just sits there, as cool as an ice cube.
She’s just that good.
BJ claimed that I said that* all explanations* were excuses. What I in fact said is that all explanations for bad behavior were excuses. When I wrote “All explanations are excuses if and only if all explanations and explanations for bad behavior mean the same thing,” I was pointing out that saying “all excuses” is not the same thing as saying “all excuses for bad behavior.” I was making no claim other than that the* two cannot be equated.*
Let me say it with different punctuation : All explanations are excuses [if and only if] all explanations and explanations for bad behavior mean the same thing.
I never said that “All explanations are excuses.” Every response I made was in refutation of that statement.
Previous to BJ’s first response to me, I had already abandoned the position that “All explanations for bad behavior are excuses;” notably, in a post responding to you. Having abandoned it, I had no need or desire to defend it. Subsequent to BJ’s post, all I was doing was defending against a position I never held, to wit, that all explanations are excuses for bad behavior.
Just to drive the point home, if anyone can show where I took that position, I would be obliged.
I’m so glad we’ve been able to keep on topic.
Yeah? And how is that contribution to the point, exactly?
Is this STILL your position, or has something changed?