For this post (and so many others), I both adore and despise you.
And again, The Ryan, why don’t you just answer both questions (or all three, if you include Waverly’s rephrasing) instead of, well, not answering them?
Esprix
The Ryan is not a troll obsessed with starting pointless arguments over semantics.
The Ryan is a Zen Master attempting to enlighten us!
Allow me to illustrate:
First, a few traditional koans-
Q-Master what is Zen?
A-This flax weighs three pounds.
Q-When both hands are struck together, a sound is made. What is the sound of one hand?
A-(Silently thrust palm forward)
Now, let’s apply the Ryan’s approach to Zen
Q-Master is the flag moving or the wind moving?
A-What exactly is moving?
Q-Do dogs meditate?
A-How do you define meditation?
Q-Why is a mouse when it runs?
A-Which definition of mouse are you using?
Enter the gateless gate my friends, and be enlightened.Define “enlightened.”
Esprix
Q-In Zen, this very mind is Buddha. Is this not so?
A-If I say yes, you will think that you understand without understanding. If I say no, I will be denying a truth that many see quite plainly.
Then the master slapped his hand on the floor, as if to awaken the pupil. At that moment, the pupil became enlightened.
You’re deliberately misconstruing what I’ve said. If you’d just read what I’ve posted, you’ll see where I stand on the issue. If people wouldn’t keep making up lies about me, I wouldn’t have to keep repeating myself.
Esprix
You're the one repeating lies. You keep stating your position as though it was correct. It is not. Everytime you say that it is, you lie. No matter how many times you repeat that lie, it will still be a lie. Your position is wrong. Accept it. Admit it. Then I can claim my rightful victory and we can all move on with our lives.-
Yes.
-
I probably have.
-
Taking the phrase “polinted out” to mean “specifically mention”, no.
-
No, but it was implied.
-
If by “precursor” you mean “could be followed by an a a a”, then I guess it is.
Your link does not support that. “indicate by inference” is not the same as “infer indirectly”.
Yes, it does.
Esprix has constantly ignored my questions, and repeatedly shown that he is not interested in rational discourse. I see no reason why I am obligated to every question he asks, but he has no such obligation with respect to me. Given the futility of past attempts, I have no intention of responding to him again.
Ooo, nice dodge - “Esprix is calling me to task on something, so I will use that very same thing as a reason not to reply to what he’s calling me to task on!”
Jerk.
(I’d suggest someone else ask him the same questions I have so that he might actually answer them, but Waverly tried and all The Ryan can do is nitpick at the question itself rather than just simply answering it.)
Esprix
(Oh, and I love you, Doc. 
)
Esprix
You know, The Ryan, you’re the only person on the planet who I’ve ever wanted to beat into unconsciousness with a 2x4.
I’m not sure why that is, either. I mean, there have been other people who I’ve wanted to beat unconscious. But I’ve never really had a specific implement in mind.
But every time I read one of your posts, I just have the urge to lay into you with a four-foot length of board.
It’s just… odd.
If you really loved me, You’d admit that I’m right and you’re wrong.[sub]1, 2[/sub]
1 I’m operating under the assumption that you mean me and not on of the other Doc’s on the board. It’s possible that you’ve simply chosen this moment to declare your love for Doc Nickel.
This is exactly the kind of generality and clouded meaning that make it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.
2 One day I hope to defeat Wring in a debate. Then I can force her to admit that I’m right and she’s Wring.
But if she’s wring, wouldn’t that make you ronght?
Esprix
That smiley clearly wasn’t intended in the usual sense. Esprix is baring his teeth at me.
His claim to love me is clearly a reference to The Screwtape Letters. He loves me just as Screwtape loves Wormwood. Esprix is expressing his desire to defeat, dismember and devour me. Though his post could be interpreted in other ways, this is obviously the meaning he intended.
I demand that Esprix be banned immediately!
I often admit I’m wring.
(glad we got that cleared up)
The Ryan, you are a good debater. Seriously. You maintain your cool while inciting others into a frothing rage, and that is a valuable tool.
However, lying is a cardinal sin for a debater, and I believe you are lying when you answer a couple of the questions I posted earlier. To wit:
- Do you agree that Waverly pointed out that the word “hurt” had multiple meanings?
The Ryan: Taking the phrase “polinted out” to mean “specifically mention”, no.
In the first place, it is not your place to change the meaning of the question to suit your purposes. Even so, though, your answer is not truthful. Waverly did indeed “specifically mention” alternate definitions of the word “hurt:”
Waverly:*Which reminds me… from dictionary.com:
quote:
hurt
Pronunciation Key (hûrt)
v. hurt, hurt•ing, hurts
v. tr.
- To cause physical damage or pain to; injure.
- To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.
- To cause physical damage to; harm: The frost hurt the orange crop.
- To be detrimental to; hinder or impair: The scandal hurt the candidate’s chances for victory.
Emphasis mine on definition 4.*
Not only did Waverly specifically mention four possible definitions of the word, he noted that he was using one of the four. It’s not possible for him to select one of a group of four if he’s claiming the other three aren’t also available for use.
- Do you agree that he never claimed the fourth definition of the word “hurt” must be used to the exclusion of all others?
The Ryan: No, but it was implied.
I don’t understand your answer here. You initially answer the question negatively, which means you think he DID claim the fourth definition must be used to the exclusion of all others. But then you say he implied that. Why would he need to imply such a thing if you think he specifically made the claim?
At any rate, I don’t understand how you can claim he implied that the fourth definition of the word in question is the only definition that’s ever available for use. No rational person could come to that conclusion based on what he posted, in my opinion. If you admit that words can have multiple meanings, and that you’ve pointed this out in the past, you can’t then claim that another poster who does the same thing is excluding all other definitions of a word in question.
Sauron shoots… SCORE!
Esprix
The Superior Court of Justice addressed the lawyer for the school district, a Mr. The Ryan, Esq., with the following:
“I have no idea what you were trying to say, but it sure didn’t help your case any.”
Guess who’s going to the prom?
I also posted this link in GD, for the benefit of those who are only following one thread. Mods, if this is a problem, feel free to delete one of the posts.
I think that you are confusing “lying” with “saying something with which I don’t agree”.
I was not changing the meaning, I was clarifying how I interpreted it.
No, he presented a quote that included alternate definitions, but did not make any references specific to them. That is, he made a reference to the quote containing the alternate definitions, but his reference was only with regards to a particular definition. So he did not mention the other definitions in his own words (he quoted someone else saying them) and he did not further acknowledge their existence.
We seem to be interpreting the term “specifically mention” differently. I am using the term to denote a mention that was specific to the meaning. A mention that includes several meanings at once, without emphasizing any over the others, would not be specific to a particular meaning.
Yes, I see that I misspoke. I inadvertanly said that I don’t agree that he didn’t claim that we can’t use the other definitions, when in fact I did not mean to say that I don’t agree that he didn’t claim that we can’t use the other definitions, but rather to agree that he didn’t explicitly claim that we can’t use other definitions. It’s perfectly clear now, right?
Okay, at which point do you stop agreeing with my chain of reasoning?
- I claimed that Esprix’s word choice implied malice.
- It follows from 1 that I thought there were definitions of “hurt” that would both be reasonable interpretations of the word “hurt” and would, in that context, imply malice.
- Waverly said that Esprix’s word choice did not imply malic.
- It follows from 3 that Waverly did not believe that there were definitions that would satisfy the conditions of 2
- Waverly’s explanation, with regard to 3, implied that while the other definitions would, in that context, imply malice, definition 4 would not.
- It follows from 4 and 5 that Waverly believed that only definition 4 was valid.
“6. It follows from 4 and 5 that Waverly believed that only definition 4 was valid.” - Ryan
Just to clarify, since we are doing much speculating on what goes on in Waverly’s head, it was my intent to both rephrase the question so it did not contain potentially objectionable terms and to point out that the original question did not necessarily imply malice. I did this so there would be no further objections to answering the question, but the Ryan subsequently brought up new ones.
Just for the record: putting myself in Ryan’s place, I would have stated my belief that no malice was involved (rephrasing or indicating a more appropriate definition of ‘hurt’ if necessary) and then answered the question. I believe that making a good faith effort to see a person’s point even if I must also object to the wording or certain implications is imperative for a discussion to go forward.
I wish I could recall who taught me, but I was taught that one of the most useful tools in a rebuttal is to foresee the opposition’s objections and address them ahead of time. If at any time you look ahead and say, “aha, someone is going to tell me I’m debating semantics and not the concept,” then perhaps it is time to accompany your semantic objection with something more to the point. Just my opinion, take it or leave it.