GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH........

Wanna talk about politics, your favorite hockey team... vegetarian recipes?
GSPODS
Hog
Posts: 4716
youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:20 am

Post by GSPODS »

Countertrey wrote:
Fios wrote:I'll take death!


You'll have to settle for a frozen pizza.


Some of those have been known to cause death. Ever heard of Totino's?
Countertrey
the 'mudge
the 'mudge
Posts: 16632
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Post by Countertrey »

GSPODS wrote:
Countertrey wrote:
Fios wrote:I'll take death!


You'll have to settle for a frozen pizza.


Some of those have been known to cause death. Ever heard of Totino's?


Chef Boyardee used to make a really nasty Sausage job... I miss them. They smelled like rotten feet. I'm sure Fios would have loved them.
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

Countertrey wrote:
Here is just a small sample of thousands of highly credentialed professionals in engineering, aviation, academia, public service, law enforcement, and intelligence


And, yet, you still expect to be taken seriously! It's on the internet! It has it's own websites! It MUST be true!!!!

You didn't happen to note how many of the "articles" were without credit? How about how many were by the same author? How about those that were by known nuts?

Didn't think so... I'm sure it wouldn't help your cred to actually vet the web sites you use.


You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar. Don't worry, even if others don't take the time to review the sources I posted, and you don't have the evidence to back up your claims of kooks and nuts that have questionable credibility, I'm going to show everyone what a bald faced liar you are. Your game is so transparent. One of the first people on the list is :

Paul Craig Roberts Served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the "Father of Reaganomics". He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and he holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College.

In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States.



Boy ole boy, you're right...this guy is a nut. How could anyone take him seriously.

And then there is (just random grabs)


Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Has time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)


Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

www.AviationExperts.co

(dozens more similarly credentialed pilots)

Moving on:

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart).

Capt. Edgar Mitchell, U.S. Navy (ret), BS Industrial Management, BS Aerontautical Engineering, Doctor of Science, Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT – Pilot and Astronaut. Sixth man to walk on the moon (Apollo 14 mission). Patrol bomber and attack plane pilot, U.S. Navy. Test Pilot, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 5 (VX-5). Chief of Project Management Division, Navy Field Office for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Project. Graduated first in his class from the Aerospace Research Pilot School, and served as an instructor there.

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 22-year Air Force career. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).

Dozens and dozens more decorated career military officers

Now some other interesting nuts

Francesco Cossiga – President of Italy (1985 - 1992) and Former Prime Minister. His comments :
"From areas around the Palazzo Chigi, nerve centre of direction of Italian intelligence, it is noted that the non-authenticity of the video is supported by the fact that Osama bin Laden in it 'confessed' that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York. However, all of the democratic areas of America and of Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know full well that the disastrous attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to falsely incriminate Arabic countries and to persuade the Western Powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan."


Andreas von Buelow, PhD – Former State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Defense of West Germany. Former Minister of Research and Technology. Member of Bundestag (Parliament) 1969 - 1994.

Tony Benn – Former Member of British Parliament 1942 - 2001. Longest serving MP in the history of the Labour party.


I'll stop now....you all get the idea....there are 100's more and I could fill up 10 pages with names and titles alone of prominent figures here in the US and around the world from the UK, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Canada, Australia.

Countertrey, you are blowing smoke. Is it that you just can't admit you are wrong or is there some other agenda you are following?
Countertrey
the 'mudge
the 'mudge
Posts: 16632
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Post by Countertrey »

Countertrey, you are blowing smoke. Is it that you just can't admit you are wrong or is there some other agenda you are following?


I just happen to like the truth... You, clearly, OTOH, enjoy fantasy. It's simple, really. I am, as you point out, "such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar."

Apparently, defending your contorted "truth" is frustrating you (I can imagine how that would be...). Is your health up to this?


Dozens and dozens more decorated career military officers

Ummm... I, btw, am a "decorated career military officer"... ( I hope that scares the crap out of you!) How come you don't just take MY word? :lol:


Well, you posted it, so, I'd might as well use it...
Francesco Cossiga – President of Italy (1985 - 1992) and Former Prime Minister. His comments :
Quote:
"From areas around the Palazzo Chigi, nerve centre of direction of Italian intelligence, it is noted that the non-authenticity of the video is supported by the fact that Osama bin Laden in it 'confessed' that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York. However, all of the democratic areas of America and of Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know full well that the disastrous attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to falsely incriminate Arabic countries and to persuade the Western Powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan."


Do you actually read the stuff you post in these things??? This is a man who was considered mentally unstable by numerous Italians, and was supported by both leftist and facist parties. His antisemitic ramblings read like a George Soros script!
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
tribeofjudah
tribe
tribe
Posts: 7075
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:02 pm
Location: SURF CITY, HB, CALI *** Occasionally flying into a SUPERNOVA

Post by tribeofjudah »

Now...what's the CIA stand for? catholic intelligence agency....D'oh! .... I didn't say that......... no offense, freedom of speech/text....

I'm just saying, because Nat Geo has something on tv stating that the Catholic church and the Nazi Germany were in bed together.....
Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron,
so one person sharpens another.
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

What decoration CT?

Someone stick a bud light label on your forehead

Excuse me for not saluting you General Smokescreen. 8)
JansenFan
and Jackson
and Jackson
Posts: 8387
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:37 am
Location: Charles Town, WV
Contact:

Careful with the personal attacks

Post by JansenFan »

RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar. Don't worry, even if others don't take the time to review the sources I posted, and you don't have the evidence to back up your claims of kooks and nuts that have questionable credibility, I'm going to show everyone what a bald faced liar you are. Your game is so transparent.


Remember, attack the post, not the poster. Just a friendly reminder. If you want to call countertrey an imbecile, please do so in talking smack.

Thank you for your cooperation.
RIP 21

"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

GSPODS wrote:And all you comment on is the first sentence? That's not like you, Kaz.

OK. You clearly weren't a math major.[/quote]
Last edited by KazooSkinsFan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
GSPODS
Hog
Posts: 4716
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:20 am

Post by GSPODS »

KazooSkinsFan wrote:OK. You clearly weren't a math major.


Would you care to expound upon the above statement?

You are fully aware I did not major in mathematics.

I'm certain you have a point, however, I am not grasping it.
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar

Hey Ray. Does it make sense to call him an imbecile AND a liar? I'm not addressing the underlying argument here, but just the logic of calling him both. So for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right on the underlying issue, our government is a bunch of Right wing nut jobs who want to declare war on the world and are willing to murder their own people to do it. FoxNews knows that and is covering it up by putting on a bunch of liberals to say how wrong they are. The devious bastards.

Anyway, if he's an imbecile, why would he need to be a liar? Wouldn't an imbecile believe something stupid and not need to be telling a lie? Actually, if he was telling a lie, wouldn't that mean he actually did get it which would undercut your imbecile theory? Inquiring minds want to know.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
GSPODS
Hog
Posts: 4716
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:20 am

Post by GSPODS »

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar

Hey Ray. Does it make sense to call him an imbecile AND a liar? I'm not addressing the underlying argument here, but just the logic of calling him both. So for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right on the underlying issue, our government is a bunch of Right wing nut jobs who want to declare war on the world and are willing to murder their own people to do it. FoxNews knows that and is covering it up by putting on a bunch of liberals to say how wrong they are. The devious bastards.

Anyway, if he's an imbecile, why would he need to be a liar? Wouldn't an imbecile believe something stupid and not need to be telling a lie? Actually, if he was telling a lie, wouldn't that mean he actually did get it which would undercut your imbecile theory? Inquiring minds want to know.


RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar


Let's examine the statement itself, shall we?
Beginning with the use of two objects attached to one subject in the statement, "imbecile" and "liar", let's investigate the imbecilic usage of imbecile in place of imbecilic. Most would consider it imbecilic to use a noun in place of an adjective in proper grammatical sentence structure.
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

GSPODS wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:OK. You clearly weren't a math major.


Would you care to expound upon the above statement?

You are fully aware I did not major in mathematics.

I'm certain you have a point, however, I am not grasping it.

I was referring to the 2+2 and the fact stuff, which your statements were nonsense mathematically. I WAS a math major. Anyway, I just meant it as a tongue in cheek comment to mess with you since asked for another opinion and I obviously agree with the government sucking part. :evil:
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
GSPODS
Hog
Posts: 4716
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:20 am

Post by GSPODS »

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
GSPODS wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:OK. You clearly weren't a math major.


Would you care to expound upon the above statement?

You are fully aware I did not major in mathematics.

I'm certain you have a point, however, I am not grasping it.

I was referring to the 2+2 and the fact stuff, which your statements were nonsense mathematically. I WAS a math major. Anyway, I just meant it as a tongue in cheek comment to mess with you since asked for another opinion and I obviously agree with the government sucking part. :evil:


Sarcasm duly noted. Of course, if you had been taught that 2+2 = 5 or that a number squared is equal to the number times the square root of the number, then you would believe that as fact. Two is only defined as two because we accept it as such. Society dictates what is or is not accepted by usage and commonality. Just because we accept it as a society doesn't make it a fact. At one time we accepted as fact that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Facts change as the information the facts are based upon changes.

Truth: I'm far from a genius.
Fact: If everyone more intelligent than I am died, I would be a genius.
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

GSPODS wrote:Sarcasm duly noted. Of course, if you had been taught that 2+2 = 5 or that a number squared is equal to the number times the square root of the number, then you would believe that as fact. Two is only defined as two because we accept it as such. Society dictates what is or is not accepted by usage and commonality. Just because we accept it as a society doesn't make it a fact. At one time we accepted as fact that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Facts change as the information the facts are based upon changes.

Truth: I'm far from a genius.
Fact: If everyone more intelligent than I am died, I would be a genius.

It doesn't make any more sense the second time. 2+2 does not equal 5 because we are taught it is 4. We may briefly believe 2+2=5 before we learned the equations don't work. Comparing math to politics is flawed because math is a proven set of consistent rules. Political ideologies are based on personal values and beliefs. In the case of the Right their political views are driven by their religious ones and in the case of the Left their political views ARE their religious views.

In both cases, the stated objectives of the Left and Right would be logically better achieved through effective libertarian solutions rather then ineffective government programs. In that sense I agree with you. So why are both Right and Left so unpersuaded by the facts of the truth of the failure of government to achieve their stated objectives? Because of the religious components of their views.

The Right believes not just in government advancing the cause of moralism but the perception of government advancing moralism, which is why they are unpersuaded by things like the war on drugs not working. Government is against drugs, that is important to them. Even at the price of funding organized crime and destabilizing governments and shootouts in the streets. Same for the Left, they are as concerned with the perception of government advancing liberalism, which is really "sameness" not "fairness," even if they have to chain the poor to government instead of truly helping them.

That is the difference, mathematics is a set of tools. They can be proven right or wrong. In politics once you agree on an objective you can logically determine the best course of action. But in the end we have different ideologies based on different goals and the correct goal cannot be solved by logic. My belief is that we should be creating our own personal goals free of government intrusion. Unfortunately the adherents to the two major parties in this country care about moralism over morality and eliminating personal responsibility over maintaining personal liberty.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Re: Careful with the personal attacks

Post by RayNAustin »

JansenFan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar. Don't worry, even if others don't take the time to review the sources I posted, and you don't have the evidence to back up your claims of kooks and nuts that have questionable credibility, I'm going to show everyone what a bald faced liar you are. Your game is so transparent.


Remember, attack the post, not the poster. Just a friendly reminder. If you want to call countertrey an imbecile, please do so in talking smack.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Fair enough, I stand corrected....and no argument from me....but it was a return insult, just so you know.
JansenFan
and Jackson
and Jackson
Posts: 8387
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:37 am
Location: Charles Town, WV
Contact:

Re: Careful with the personal attacks

Post by JansenFan »

RayNAustin wrote:
JansenFan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar. Don't worry, even if others don't take the time to review the sources I posted, and you don't have the evidence to back up your claims of kooks and nuts that have questionable credibility, I'm going to show everyone what a bald faced liar you are. Your game is so transparent.


Remember, attack the post, not the poster. Just a friendly reminder. If you want to call countertrey an imbecile, please do so in talking smack.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Fair enough, I stand corrected....and no argument from me....but it was a return insult, just so you know.


First, let me start by apologizing. This was meant to be a PM. Secondly, I didn't notice any prior to that, so let me just make this a blanket, "Everyone watch the personal attacks."
RIP 21

"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar

Hey Ray. Does it make sense to call him an imbecile AND a liar? I'm not addressing the underlying argument here, but just the logic of calling him both. So for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right on the underlying issue, our government is a bunch of Right wing nut jobs who want to declare war on the world and are willing to murder their own people to do it. FoxNews knows that and is covering it up by putting on a bunch of liberals to say how wrong they are. The devious bastards.

Anyway, if he's an imbecile, why would he need to be a liar? Wouldn't an imbecile believe something stupid and not need to be telling a lie? Actually, if he was telling a lie, wouldn't that mean he actually did get it which would undercut your imbecile theory? Inquiring minds want to know.


I'm not sure why you or other inquiring minds would automatically consider the two maladies to be mutually exclusive of one another :wink:.....but in keeping with the rules of the board for which I've been politely reminded and for which I intend to dutifully honor, hypothetically speaking....could not an imbecile (defined as a stupid or silly person by the dictionary) also lie or fabricate or deceive in order to support their position? Of course they could. But does that then mean that they knew all along that their position was steeped in dishonesty? Not necessarily. They could be so totally convinced their beliefs are true that they are willing to lie to defend them. Conversely, to follow your logic, a liar would automatically have to be a smart person. And I don't think you are really suggesting that are you?

Now there are all types of lies. There are lies of commission, and lies of omission. There are deceptive practices and ploys engaged in by those who find their position effectively challenged by the truth or the facts. There are those who will misquote, and those who will divert, and those that selectively address points taken out of context. Frequently such types never address an issue directly, but will demand sources, implying that no sources exist. When those sources are presented, they will attempt to disqualify a single source in oder to bring into doubt all sources. All of it can be classified as dishonest, and by definition, a lie. But that does not prove one way or the other whether someone believes or not the position they are defending with such tactics. Only a mind reader could answer that. And I don't read minds.

Have I satisfactorily addressed your question?
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Re: Careful with the personal attacks

Post by RayNAustin »

JansenFan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:
JansenFan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar. Don't worry, even if others don't take the time to review the sources I posted, and you don't have the evidence to back up your claims of kooks and nuts that have questionable credibility, I'm going to show everyone what a bald faced liar you are. Your game is so transparent.


Remember, attack the post, not the poster. Just a friendly reminder. If you want to call countertrey an imbecile, please do so in talking smack.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Fair enough, I stand corrected....and no argument from me....but it was a return insult, just so you know.


First, let me start by apologizing. This was meant to be a PM. Secondly, I didn't notice any prior to that, so let me just make this a blanket, "Everyone watch the personal attacks."


No need to apologize. Your reminder was polite and legitimate.
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

RayNAustin wrote:I'm not sure why you or other inquiring minds would automatically consider the two maladies to be mutually exclusive of one another :wink:.....but in keeping with the rules of the board for which I've been politely reminded and for which I intend to dutifully honor, hypothetically speaking....could not an imbecile (defined as a stupid or silly person by the dictionary) also lie or fabricate or deceive in order to support their position? Of course they could. But does that then mean that they knew all along that their position was steeped in dishonesty? Not necessarily. They could be so totally convinced their beliefs are true that they are willing to lie to defend them. Conversely, to follow your logic, a liar would automatically have to be a smart person. And I don't think you are really suggesting that are you?

Now there are all types of lies. There are lies of commission, and lies of omission. There are deceptive practices and ploys engaged in by those who find their position effectively challenged by the truth or the facts. There are those who will misquote, and those who will divert, and those that selectively address points taken out of context. Frequently such types never address an issue directly, but will demand sources, implying that no sources exist. When those sources are presented, they will attempt to disqualify a single source in oder to bring into doubt all sources. All of it can be classified as dishonest, and by definition, a lie. But that does not prove one way or the other whether someone believes or not the position they are defending with such tactics. Only a mind reader could answer that. And I don't read minds.

Have I satisfactorily addressed your question?

Well, I have to agree in the general that one could certainly be both an imbecile and a liar. But in this case, I mean in the hypothetical case, the accused perpetrator of mischievous acts was informed he was both imbecile and liar in the course of ascertaining a single conclusion. Wouldn't there be a an inconsistency in simultaneously engaging in both transgressions since to engage in one you would be required to have awareness the act which you are engaged in is deceitful, and in the alternate you are by definition incapable of determining the validity of the incident in question? So isn't your insinuation that Trey, er, I mean the hypothetical accused, is both imbecile and liar in the aforementioned incident raise an irreconcilable dichotomy rendering the conclusion he is both of highly questionable validity?

I'm just asking.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:I'm not sure why you or other inquiring minds would automatically consider the two maladies to be mutually exclusive of one another :wink:.....but in keeping with the rules of the board for which I've been politely reminded and for which I intend to dutifully honor, hypothetically speaking....could not an imbecile (defined as a stupid or silly person by the dictionary) also lie or fabricate or deceive in order to support their position? Of course they could. But does that then mean that they knew all along that their position was steeped in dishonesty? Not necessarily. They could be so totally convinced their beliefs are true that they are willing to lie to defend them. Conversely, to follow your logic, a liar would automatically have to be a smart person. And I don't think you are really suggesting that are you?

Now there are all types of lies. There are lies of commission, and lies of omission. There are deceptive practices and ploys engaged in by those who find their position effectively challenged by the truth or the facts. There are those who will misquote, and those who will divert, and those that selectively address points taken out of context. Frequently such types never address an issue directly, but will demand sources, implying that no sources exist. When those sources are presented, they will attempt to disqualify a single source in oder to bring into doubt all sources. All of it can be classified as dishonest, and by definition, a lie. But that does not prove one way or the other whether someone believes or not the position they are defending with such tactics. Only a mind reader could answer that. And I don't read minds.

Have I satisfactorily addressed your question?

Well, I have to agree in the general that one could certainly be both an imbecile and a liar. But in this case, I mean in the hypothetical case, the accused perpetrator of mischievous acts was informed he was both imbecile and liar in the course of ascertaining a single conclusion. Wouldn't there be a an inconsistency in simultaneously engaging in both transgressions since to engage in one you would be required to have awareness the act which you are engaged in is deceitful, and in the alternate you are by definition incapable of determining the validity of the incident in question? So isn't your insinuation that Trey, er, I mean the hypothetical accused, is both imbecile and liar in the aforementioned incident raise an irreconcilable dichotomy rendering the conclusion he is both of highly questionable validity?

I'm just asking.


The long answer is no. I covered that in my previous explanation, but let me rephrase.

In this hypothetical instance, the alleged imbecile drew upon nonsensical arguments that rely on factual inconsistencies as the basis for his opinion/position regarding the matter. I have no doubt he sees that differently, and believes his position to be the right stance....i.e. not a lie.

However, during the course of debate, the hypothetical imbecile engaged in tactics and arguments in support of that position which were untrue, and in my determination, purposely, knowing his supporting arguments and tactics were untrue. Follow me?

Now I could be wrong....and this hypothetical person could be just a complete imbecile, so stupid as to not even recognize his supporting arguments and tactics were dishonest.

But I suspect that is not the case, and believe my gut level impressions were accurate.
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

RayNAustin wrote:The long answer is no. I covered that in my previous explanation, but let me rephrase.

In this hypothetical instance, the alleged imbecile drew upon nonsensical arguments that rely on factual inconsistencies as the basis for his opinion/position regarding the matter. I have no doubt he sees that differently, and believes his position to be the right stance....i.e. not a lie.

However, during the course of debate, the hypothetical imbecile engaged in tactics and arguments in support of that position which were untrue, and in my determination, purposely, knowing his supporting arguments and tactics were untrue. Follow me?

Now I could be wrong....and this hypothetical person could be just a complete imbecile, so stupid as to not even recognize his supporting arguments and tactics were dishonest.

But I suspect that is not the case, and believe my gut level impressions were accurate.

Aaaahhhahaaa! So you admit it's in fact entirely conceivable the hypothetical party in question (noting we have no reason whatsoever to believe is actually in reality Trey) is in fact merely an imbecile and not a liar at all! You were engaging in mere conjecture and rampant speculation on that point! NOW we're getting somewhere. I should have been a lawyer.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

I have an analogy to better explain the point:

You are off fishing alone one evening and your wife is at home. You come home at 10:00 pm with fish.

The next day it is discovered that someone who looks a lot like you robbed a convenience store and drove off in a car that looks a lot like yours.

The Police show up at your door, wanting to know where you were at 8:00 PM the night before. Your wife knowing that you would never do such a thing, tells the Police that you were home with her all evening. Little did she know that it really was you that robbed the store....you caught the fish at 7:00, and robbed the store at 8:00 and returned home at 10:00. But she didn't know that. She just knew that you were alone and therefore no legitimate alibi for your whereabouts.

She lied in support of what she firmly believed was the truth.

Now to take it one step further, perhaps you have a long history of robbing convenience stores, and she is aware of it, but chose to believe you when you said you didn't do it, that you really were out fishing.

That would make her a Liar and an imbecile in support of what she foolishly believed was true.

Get it?
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

RayNAustin wrote:I have an analogy to better explain the point:

You are off fishing alone one evening and your wife is at home. You come home at 10:00 pm with fish.

The next day it is discovered that someone who looks a lot like you robbed a convenience store and drove off in a car that looks a lot like yours.

The Police show up at your door, wanting to know where you were at 8:00 PM the night before. Your wife knowing that you would never do such a thing, tells the Police that you were home with her all evening. Little did she know that it really was you that robbed the store....you caught the fish at 7:00, and robbed the store at 8:00 and returned home at 10:00. But she didn't know that. She just knew that you were alone and therefore no legitimate alibi for your whereabouts.

She lied in support of what she firmly believed was the truth.

Now to take it one step further, perhaps you have a long history of robbing convenience stores, and she is aware of it, but chose to believe you when you said you didn't do it, that you really were out fishing.

That would make her a Liar and an imbecile in support of what she foolishly believed was true.

Get it?

I do! Wow, Trey has a great wife. Dumb AND loyal. Is she hot too, Trey? Don't tell me unless the answer is "no," I couldn't handle it. My wife's hot and loyal, but she's unfortunately not dumb at all. Went to Smith College and all that. I don't get away with ANYTHING. Not even things I didn't do.

Er, I meant that question to an unknown hypothetical entity, not Trey.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:The long answer is no. I covered that in my previous explanation, but let me rephrase.

In this hypothetical instance, the alleged imbecile drew upon nonsensical arguments that rely on factual inconsistencies as the basis for his opinion/position regarding the matter. I have no doubt he sees that differently, and believes his position to be the right stance....i.e. not a lie.

However, during the course of debate, the hypothetical imbecile engaged in tactics and arguments in support of that position which were untrue, and in my determination, purposely, knowing his supporting arguments and tactics were untrue. Follow me?

Now I could be wrong....and this hypothetical person could be just a complete imbecile, so stupid as to not even recognize his supporting arguments and tactics were dishonest.

But I suspect that is not the case, and believe my gut level impressions were accurate.

Aaaahhhahaaa! So you admit it's in fact entirely conceivable the hypothetical party in question (noting we have no reason whatsoever to believe is actually in reality Trey) is in fact merely an imbecile and not a liar at all! You were engaging in mere conjecture and rampant speculation on that point! NOW we're getting somewhere. I should have been a lawyer.


No, not that simple. I admit no such thing. I was simply suggesting that anything is possible....however unlikely and remote.

And no, not mere conjecture or rampant speculation at all. Subjective conclusion based on experience in similar situations with those who employ similar tactics along with the preponderance of the evidence in support of that conclusion...
tribeofjudah
tribe
tribe
Posts: 7075
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:02 pm
Location: SURF CITY, HB, CALI *** Occasionally flying into a SUPERNOVA

Post by tribeofjudah »

Hey RayNAustin, I am interested in knowing more about the drug companies that are running the show and ruining our health....

sunscreen, cough syrup, cancer pills..... all these probably do more harm than good, just so they stay in business and make billions of $.

Give me more amazing facts. Give me some links. Fascinating.
Last edited by tribeofjudah on Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron,
so one person sharpens another.
Post Reply