Ugh, Embarrassed this Douche is on "My side" (Chik-fil-a)

[Morgenstern]

@brazil84

I do not engage with this poster due to his past dishonesty.

Translated:

I choose to ignore those who skillfully point out the holes in my logic.

[Frylock]

@mhendo

I understand that.But, in my opinion, the two phrases that you have equated in your first sentence are not, in fact, equivalent, and equating them makes a nonsense of the whole exercise.

The fact that someone might intend or hope or argue for a principle to apply in most cases does not mean that the principle necessarily does, in fact, apply in most cases. This is precisely the difference between a “generally applicable principle” and “something that i think should be generally applicable.”

I have no doubt that some people believe that gambling is harmful to the soul, and that they believe that this principle applies to everyone that gambles. But this doesn’t make it a generally applicable principle.

I think your argument is just about what the phrase “generally applicable princple” “really means.” But I think it’s best just to let Brazil mean whatever he wants to mean by it, so long as we’re all clear about what he means.

[brazil84]

@Morgenstern

Translated:

I choose to ignore those who skillfully point out the holes in my logic.

Nonsense, I am happy to point out exactly where he was dishonest if you would like.

Unfortunately, for a lot of posters, “skilfully pointing out holes in someone’s logic” entails the initial step of setting up a strawman, i.e. pretending that the other fellow has said something different from what he actually said.

[mhendo]

@Frylock

I think your argument is just about what the phrase “generally applicable princple” “really means.” But I think it’s best just to let Brazil mean whatever he wants to mean by it, so long as we’re all clear about what he means.

If you want to proceed with debates by letting brazil84 redefine terms to mean something completely different from what they actually mean, knock yourself out. I wish you luck.

[Frylock]

@mhendo

If you want to proceed with debates by letting brazil84 redefine terms to mean something completely different from what they actually mean, knock yourself out. I wish you luck.

A person can use “cat” to mean dog for all I care, as long as they’ve made sure I know that’s what they’re doing.

But anyway, it appears the conversation will not be continuing due to Brazil’s misconstrual of my intentions, so the point is moot.

[VinylTurnip]

@Frylock

A person can use “cat” to mean dog for all I care, as long as they’ve made sure I know that’s what they’re doing.

But anyway, it appears the conversation will not be continuing due to Brazil’s misconstrual of my intentions, so the point is moot.

That is a pity. If ever there were a chance of b84 forging a lasting relationship with a human being, someone willing to accept that “cat” means “dog” just because he says so would otherwise be the top (and likely sole) candidate.

[Frylock]

Sorry, I’m not sure how serious you’re being, but just ftr, I didn’t say I was willing to stipulate that cat means dog. I said I was willing to let him use the term however he likes, so long as he’s made it clear how he’s using it. That wouldn’t mean cat really does mean dog–just that he’s using it to mean dog.

[Kozmik]

Just don’t go to Chik-fil-a. I will never go there.

[Kozmik]

@BigT

Did he go too far?, Yes. But is he this horrible person everyone makes him out to be, not hardly. The basic idea of ordering water and taking up their time, while reporting his message, is sound.

He should have just started a movement. Have people order water, just say “thank you”, and drive away and drink the water. If the company discontinues giving free water then bring up Jesus or something.

[gamerunknown]

That’s a bad principle generally though. If the water is tap water, it is practically free. There are opportunity costs to providing it, notably the cost of cups (which are minimal) and the labour of the servers. However, providing free water is one of the more progressive stances a company can take (ignoring this particular companies other horrible positions) and rescinding such a stance may discourage other companies from adopting it.

[YogSothoth]

@brazil84

Sure there is – for example, the principle that it’s harmful to one’s soul to gamble.

There is no soul. Argument OVER! drops mic and walks off stage