User:Woozle/debate/2013-12-03
Christopher Hannigan's comments which I deleted from here, for the record:
1
What facts? your 14 points? I have asked for you to tell me what facts. You are going to enormous lengths to avoid answering basic questions regarding logic.
Pose a single "fact" to me and I will state whether I agree or disagree and if I disagree why I disagree. (In fact I already asked you to do so, repeatedly)
I have already proven that your entire premise is broken, so I am humoring you by playing along with your game.
So tell me a "fact" that you want me to see if I agree with you. There have ... [remainder of comment was not included in notification email]
2
(by the way I already answered your Q1 above which is just this question again and I already said my problem was your reasoning, and not your "facts")
3
Wow. In other words, you can't take the debate, so you delete my response and edit your own to pretend this is the way the discourse happened. This is the lowest...
Those aren't facts. In fact I took your suppositions of C above and tore them apart. For the most part A actually supports my position so I don't need to go into detail explaining the relative accuracy of those suppositions.
See this is the definition of fact: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact?s=t
This is the definition of supposition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supposition?s=t
When you posit your assumptive interpretations as fact you are simply pulling a Bill O'Reilly. I think you assume I am too dense to recognize that you are attempting to get me to agree to a point only to twist its meaning (as you did with Frederick Douglass' words).
4
Also as a side note, the deleted comments are not on your website "remainder of comment was not included in notification email]"
... If you wanted them preserved "for the record" you would have had the courage to leave them inline rather than hide them in your personal MediaWiki site...
Does this conduct seem appropriate to you in any way, shape, or form, for a post which you yourself titled "Rational Debate 101"
I would normally expect an apology, but I no longer believe you are a person of character, but rather little more than a censor with a bully-pulpit (your G+ post).? I have not disputed the statements in A (or B), but they may certainly be applied fallaciously. The "facts" that you present aren't inherently wrong, but your application of them appears to have no logical basis.
I have already replied first by eviscerating your perceived value in the 4 values shared by indentured servitude and slavery (of which precisely 0 is shared with modern American labor), and as yet need to be shown why A or B is even relevant. I have no reason to dispute the premise you lay out, although it is obvious that your interpretation is going to be illogical based on your argumentation from the post you have now closed.
I have already presented my standards for definition of slavery, and you have compared slavery and indentured servitude and so far presented exactly 0 "facts" that support your claim and yet you ask me to evaluate other "facts" that as far as I can tell only show that slavery is not comparable to indentured servitude...
So yes, I agree with your remaining "facts" above. There are 8 listed ways (among others) that indentured servitude is different from slavery.
Your 2 remaining "scales of slavery" is a little weird and I have no idea what you mean by that. The implication that lack of resistance changes the nature of slavery seems, well, offensive. If I applied this to another crime, say rape, you would not use that as a "scale" to apply to the crime, would you?
So now that I have shown you to be a post-deleting-cowardly-poopy-pants (sorry some levity is required when you ask for debate and silence the criticism), would you care to actually respond?
By the way, I only had 1 requirement for slavery, so... do you dispute my "fact"? ANSWER THE QUESTION OR I WILL PULL A HISSY FIT!
;)?
5
I can recognize now what you are. I hope you at least have the courage to leave this thread open, so that in the off-chance that someone stumbles across it, you can at least say that in the end you allowed a record to continue.
To destroy the words of another so callously is shameful. After visiting your page I can see that you are the degenerate thinker. Not even the parrot. I have no words left for you. Just a link that I am sure you missed the first time along with everything else I wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger
[three-strikes warning was posted after this comment]