Another lie from you. I left Debates because they aren’t great anymore, in my opinion. And that’s partly because you’re in there blathering about stuff that gets you pitted.
You’ve demonstrated your idiocy quite thoroughly and you almost certainly will continue to do so.
The simple fact that you giggled at epistemological relevation and then summarized it as “God Told Me So!” will prove to anyone who actually reads the link that you don’t know anything about the topic.
So what we have so far is that you’ve dodged all the questions, offered no cites of your own, made fun of Stanford University, and proved you’re an idiot.
An argument involving <b>TVAA</b> and <b>Lib</b>. I thought it could only be so long before GIT was invoked. I said it (or something like it) in that thread (I think), and I’ll say it again, you two are never going to agree, why bother arguing?
I don’t mind a disagreement. There are plenty of people who disagree with my belief system and who do not call me an idiot who does not understand logic for holding it. Vorlon feels compelled not merely to disagree, but to ridicule. That is not acceptable.
** “I left Debates because everyone made fun of my pet ideas, and insisted on exposing my gross errors in reasoning and argumentation. It just wasn’t fun anymore, partly because of you, TVAA.” [/translation module]
** Yep, it’s really enthusiastic about the possibility of divine revelation being a valid way to reach conclusions about the world. Clearly, my rejection of the article’s acceptance of revelation (which occurs where in this quote, exactly?) is a slur against Stanford University itself and every intellectual and professor within it. Truly I am a Philistine among men.
Count me as one of those who may disagree with Libertarian and (to some measure) agree with TVAA – but damn well wish that TVAA would be a lot nicer about it.
Or is that preferring form over content? Well so be it: I’d rather someone be correct and polite over being correct and rude…
And, frankly, I’d rather someone be incorrect and polite than correct and rude. The former is probably willing to listen to those who disagree…and the latter tends to alienate the very souls he ought to be teaching.
People who are incorrect and polite will generally sit quietly and nod politely when they’re told the truth – and then ignore all of it and continue thinking and teaching what they believed before.
With genuine truthseekers, of course, it doesn’t much matter whether they’re polite or not, or wrong or not – they respect and respond to truth, and they often recognize it when it comes their way.
People who think they can define the truth… well, there’s no reasonable dealing with them.
I’d rather call a delving instrument a delving instrument than flatter someone by pretending it’s a kazoo.
[quote] Trinopus: … the latter tends to alienate the very souls he ought to be teaching.
He would have to know something about the subject matter in order to teach, so it’s just as well.
TVAA was pitted because someone asked him where he learned all he [claimed he] knew about psychology. His response? “Have you ever heard of the Hyppocratic Oath?”
He dodged so many direct questions about his qualifications that Coldfire finally pinned him down and he had to admit that he has no credentials. He has some college courses and is “self-taught.”
The “research” he’s talking about consists of reading outdated textbooks. He twists, lies, denies, implies. Further, he apparently has as much trouble comprehending what he reads here at SDMB as he does in those textbooks.
This has to be one of the funniest comments I’ve read at SDMB:
Rumor has it that the DSM-IV Casebook has a new section devoted entirely to research on TVAA under the diagnosis of Attention Whore.
On the other side, I may disagree with Libertarian from time to time, (read: frequently) but he is able to express himself quite well. That’s one of the first things that I noticed about him. He is also very good about providing cites for factual information.
For what it’s worth, I’m a former career high school English and communications teacher, forensic coach, graduate psychology student and National Forensic Meet Judge. (Vanderbilt- Peabody, Class of 1969)
I do, as well. Although less so when TVAA argues with Lib…then the invective is often justified. However TVAA also goes overboard in other uncalled for situations, IME.
but it’s better to be correct and rude than incorrect and rude…that’s the killer combination that annoyed me about december so much, and what annoys me when TVAA is incorrect, which, in this discussion, TVAA is not.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but part of being a good speaker is to know your audience, and here if you don’t have a decent cite, people write you off. To say someone is in fact wrong to provide these cites, or the cites are wrong for such and such a reason is a good counter-point, but coming from someone who doesn’t back much of what you say with any cite is a bit ironic. TVAA, maybe it’s not so much about truth as it is about pride, and your responses are loaded with it, which is too bad, because then the truth just gets buried in it. I actually like ** Lib’s** posts, as well as a lot of yours, although I don’t agree with all of them, in the same way I like someone’s posts who I wouldn’t agree at all with, but are able to stick to issues. To disagree is one thing, and I think the whole point of the OP is not a disagreement, it’s when it comes across as ‘You’re wrong because you’re an ass’ that it loses merit.
