ahbassett: and still useful from time to time!
If you intended that advice for the opposition, then you're applying it to the right target. It's not applicable to me. Now to have a little fun...
ahbassett: The wise of heart will heed commandments, but a babbling fool will come to ruin.
The wise of heart will heed commandments that'll actually help his situation. Not those that don't apply to him. None of the whining that I'm rebutting constitute "commandments."
If those "commandments" represent the need to go down the wrong path, then "babbling" about that fact would prevent ruin.
Just imagine if our founding fathers just headed the "commandments" from London instead babbling about rule of law and representation.
ahbassett: One who is clever conceals knowledge, but the mind of a fool broadcasts folly.
Knowledge has to be shared. If someone is wrong, I'm going to correct them as soon as I can. If a group of people are wrong, then I'm going to broadcast the facts.
It's like those economists who went against the grain back in 2006... and predicted that the habits of the time were going to lead to a series of crashing bubbles. Way too many people took them for fools... and ended up losing a lot back in 2008. (Added 2011)
The situation applies here. I'm the one in this debate that's providing good "commandments." The knuckleheads I'm debating aren't heading them. They choose to babble like a fool instead.
By your definition, I should conceal corruption evidence... I wouldn't want to come across as a "fool" for highlighting that corruption... and trying to get it corrected.
ahbassett: A fool despises another's instruction, but the one who heeds admonition is prudent.
A fool will follow another's instruction if that instruction isn't the right medicine.
Now, let's use an analogy to demonstrate your use of inductive fallacy.
Say the government passed one law for the powerful and another one for the rest of us. The latter babbled on and on about equal treatment under the law... they're subsequently admonished to not rock the boat. They're told to suck it up and like it.
I guess it'd be prudent for them to just suck it up and like it.
Can't be a fool and talk about things like equal treatment and fair legislation.
My opponent's comments are no more "instructions" than the middle finger hand and finger expression.
ahbassett: A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion.
Don't take my "No quarters" debate tactic as my "taking no pleasure" in understanding.
I could perfectly understand someone's need to say and feel like the wind is a god. But my refusal to agree with him, and my refusal to come to a middle ground with him, shouldn't be mistaken for my refusing or not understanding what he is saying.
The opposition is expressing emotion based opinion. Not something intended to better anybody. I'm expressing a logical argument based on facts. Don't reduce that to just an "opinion."
Good thing you're not a doctor... you'd get sued for malpractice.
No comments:
Post a Comment