too rich?

[jonb]

And others are capable of understanding.
As for poor form like many atheists I am not here to prosthelytize.

[HorribleOffensiveScouser91]

It seems that Tibby does not comprehend that Jonb is not avoiding the question, he simply expressed it how he felt, there is no RIGHT or WRONG way of expressing it afterall.

No, there is a right way and a wrong way to use words. jonb denied that the word "tax" meant a government tax, but has yet to say what definition of the word "tax" meant. That is what annoys me about his posts here; he has rejected my understanding of his post (and has even gone on to say I focus too much on single things), but hasn't explained how I am wrong.

Furthermore, when you state 'he is not winning the favour of anyone' I think this is the difference between your arguing technique and his, It seems that Tibs' argument is purely about getting Jonb to admit he is wrong or that his wording was so that everybody can see Tibs won.

I don't care about winning anything here; I want answers as to why I'm apparently wrong with my interpretation of what he said. Read back over my posts and his; you'll see that he avoids answering my question despite me asking it several times.

Finally, Tibs has gotten to a point were he realises his argument is ludicris so therefore his arguing technique changes to that of speaking down to him stating he is acting like a child. Like many here I believe it is the other way round.

My argument is far from ludicrous. If he didn't mean the word "tax" in the governmental sense, he must have meant it in a different sense. I can't for the life of me figure out what that sense is, hence why I've asked him repeatedly to define it.

...and yes, he is acting like a child, by refusing to either admit he used the wrong word, or give me the definition he was using. In a debate, it is very poor form to call someone out and claim they have misunderstood you, and then refuse to explain how they have done so, especially if they ask you for specifics.

Well the reason I branded your argument as ludicrous was because originally the whole debate seemed pointless and silly, then I realised it was a one sided debate and the reason he wasn't answering your question didn't seem like an avoidance, rather it seemed like a waste of time debate.

It is funny you brand someone as 'acting like a child' for NOT engaging in your debate of 'you worded this wrong' ... It seems someone would have to be childish to engage in this conversation and to give in to your argument.

[Tiberius]

And others are capable of understanding.
As for poor form like many atheists I am not here to prosthelytize.

One other seems to be capable of understanding, or at least seems to think you have answered the question (you have not). Shell seems to agree with my view, and I've received kudos from others on posts where I ask you to define your use of the word "tax".

Maybe there is a silent majority, but they are silent. I'm not going to stand for someone piling up accusations against me, when they can't even answer such a bloody simple question.

[Shell B]

It seems that Tibs' argument is purely about getting Jonb to admit he is wrong or that his wording was so that everybody can see Tibs won.

Finally, Tibs has gotten to a point were he realises his argument is ludicris so therefore his arguing technique changes to that of speaking down to him stating he is acting like a child. Like many here I believe it is the other way round.

You're a bleeding idiot. Why does he need to win this argument? He's not even in it to win a fucking argument. It has been obvious that he hasn't even been able to have a debate worth winning because the terms are being muddied with bullshit. Jonb does not have to admit he was wrong about anything. All he has to do is say which definition of fucking tax he was using.

Also, like many here? You mean like you and jon? I don't even dislike jon. I just think he is being willfully obtuse to avoid stating how he really feels, which is just fucking weird. As for you, who the hell knows what horse you have in this race, but I tell you, you're not getting anywhere calling Tiberius a child and then spelling ludicrous like you are talking about the fucking rapper. Fucking dolt.

---

It seems someone would have to be childish to engage in this conversation

Says the guy in the middle of the conversation. How do you survive with that level of intellect?

I'm bowing out before I catch the idiocy that is flying around in here. It is senseless to have a conversation with one person who won't define the terms of their argument and another person who seems to have no clue what he is saying.

[Tiberius]

Well the reason I branded your argument as ludicrous was because originally the whole debate seemed pointless and silly, then I realised it was a one sided debate and the reason he wasn't answering your question didn't seem like an avoidance, rather it seemed like a waste of time debate.

The debate wasn't pointless to begin with, but he seems to have made it so by his continual refusal to answer my simple question. I wanted this point to be over quickly, but it is he who has dragged it out. If someone said you had misinterpreted what they said, wouldn't you want to know what they had originally meant? I would, hence why I asked him to state his definition. He did not, and has not yet.

I continue to ask him mostly because I actually want to know what his answer is, but also because it reveals what a disingenuous person he actually is.

It is funny you brand someone as 'acting like a child' for NOT engaging in your debate of 'you worded this wrong' ... It seems someone would have to be childish to engage in this conversation and to give in to your argument.

His entire point was based around taxation of 100 people. What he meant by the word "tax" is called into question by himself, yet he refuses to explain what he actually meant.

Sorry, but he was the one who started this debate when I said his proposal of a government tax was absurd, and he told me he never meant a government tax. What tax did he mean? What other form of tax is there that involves a percentage of money, and the forcible taking of that money?

[Nine]

Wording is kinda important if a discussion is to go anywhere. How are you meant to continue if you don't know what the other person means?

[Violet]

Wording is kinda important if a discussion is to go anywhere. How are you meant to continue if you don't know what the other person means?

+1

You guys look to be in a semantic blockade of stubbornness. Either one of you has the power to use the others' definition and say "well, what I said doesn't apply under your definition, please allow me to rephrase with a new word(s) or to modify my argument so that it fits within your definition"...

A person doesn't become suddenly 'wrong' when they adapt their terms and arguments to another's (all arguments made with 'elf' under the understanding of Tolkien-esque elves are simply not the same when the definition of 'elf' as a very short person is used instead)... the intended argument doesn't change just because two people are defining the words differently, instead a questioning individual might ask the arguer to define 'elf'.

It's certainly more productive than this bickering

*DISCLAIMER* This is going off the assumption that Jonb is serious when he suggests that others are believing he meant something that he didn't intend.

[jonb]

OK Lilly I will try, I made a statement, without any reference to government, it was not about government, The statements parameters were that I was talking about 100 people their wealth and my reactions to it.
I felt Tibs trying to force into that definition 'government', which I was not talking about, as any government would be outside of the statement as written.
I refute any statements of others telling me what I have written by paraphrasing it, or telling me what I think. I try to when ever I make statements about others work to use phrases like 'it seems', 'I think'. The English I use is based on usage and that is clear when you read my posts, in that I never (to my knowledge) use academic terms like straw-man, or any other terminology conventionally used in academic debate, unless the term has become part of common usage in my culture.

As an Absurdist I know that I can draw meaning from a statement, but I am not able to tell the writer what he meant by that statement only what I can draw from it. As such when I am told by another what my statement means, I have to object, as that person can only say what it means to them.
I object to being told this is bullshit, that I am flaming, that I am being deliberately obtuse or a child, because I do not want to redefine what I have written. I have no concerns about another's interpretation of my words, but I object to them telling me their interpretation takes presidency over mine and therefore I should alter my text.

[Tiberius]

OK Lilly I will try, I made a statement, without any reference to government, it was not about government, The statements parameters were that I was talking about 100 people their wealth and my reactions to it. I felt Tibs trying to force into that definition 'government', which I was not talking about, as any government would be outside of the statement as written.

Granted, you did not make reference to government. However, you did make reference to a "25% tax" in the context of money, and with the idea that it should be taken from 100 people. The only kind of tax I know of which applies under those constraints is one levied by a government body. That is why I went on to refute your point under the context of government; because you wrote it in a way which seemed to imply you meant a government tax.

I refute any statements of others telling me what I have written by paraphrasing it, or telling me what I think. I try to when ever I make statements about others work to use phrases like 'it seems', 'I think'. The English I use is based on usage and that is clear when you read my posts, in that I never (to my knowledge) use academic terms like straw-man, or any other terminology conventionally used in academic debate, unless the term has become part of common usage in my culture.

I was not paraphrasing; I quoted you exactly. I'm not trying to tell you what I think; I've asked you repeatedly to explain what you meant, and you have refused me on every occasion (and you still do).

If the English you use is based on usage, then you would be able to point to it's usage in the dictionary. You have not yet one so. We've had these kind of debates on the forum before, and it got so out of hand that we even mentioned in the rules that we don't approve of people using their own definitions of words. You are either using a definition of the word "tax" that is personal to you (which only confuses things), or you did not mean to use the word "tax" in the first place, and were talking about taking that money in a different way, because as far as the dictionary definition of "tax" is concerned, only a government can forcibly take a percentage of money in the form of tax. If someone else does it, it's either an involuntary fine, a voluntary fee, or theft.

As an Absurdist I know that I can draw meaning from a statement, but I am not able to tell the writer what he meant by that statement only what I can draw from it. As such when I am told by another what my statement means, I have to object, as that person can only say what it means to them.

You have not told me what your statement means. This whole situation could be resolved if you just told me the dictionary definition. You choose to continue it. That, my friend, is the only "absurd" thing here.

I object to being told this is bullshit, that I am flaming, that I am being deliberately obtuse or a child, because I do not want to redefine what I have written.

For fuck's sake, I am not telling you to redefine what you have written; nobody is. I'm asking you to define your terms. That is not redefinition; that is definition. The meaning of your use of the word "tax" is not clearly understood by people; we are asking what you actually meant by it. I think you used it in the wrong way, but I can't know that until you tell me what it means.

I have no concerns about another's interpretation of my words, but I object to them telling me their interpretation takes presidency over mine and therefore I should alter my text.

I'm not saying my interpretation takes precedent, nor am I saying you should alter your text. I have never told you that. Stop bullshitting to try and get your way out of this.

For the last fucking time, I'm saying that to me (and a lot of people apparently), your use of the word "tax" seemed to suggest a government tax. You deny this. I asked for clarification as to what definition you were using. I'm still waiting for that clarification.

[Whateverist]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=5...=1&theater

Seen on facebook but I don't know how to make the cartoon appear here. It isn't a dead fit for the topic here. Unlike 'god', the mega rich don't have any reputation to uphold. So their lack of charity doesn't result in an absurd contradiction the way it does for character of the bible's god. But you have to wonder why the 100 richest don't just give the poor bastards some food when they would have to give up absolutely nothing of their own consumption. All it would cost them is the potential to consume even more than they actually can or care to.

As a flaming liberal, I believe there is always an implicit social contract at work. When the game starts to play out in an unacceptable way, the masses have two choices. Starve out of a sense of fair play given the explicit rules of the game, or, hit the reset button and change the game.

Libertarians and conservatives have a strong regard for the existing, explicit rules of the game. They naturally are invested in preserving those rules and their consequences no matter the result. "It isn't fair to whine and impose on the winners just because you aren't keeping up", they will say. And of course they are correct, given the explicit rules. But when the results become unbearable, it is time for the masses to remind the effete that there is a reset button.