[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
68.186.88.59
In Reply to: RE: I'd love to stick around... posted by Analog Scott on July 04, 2008 at 21:22:41
"You would love stick around to be insulted? To each his own."Your various comments in the PHP forum last night were below your normal level of discourse. Rather than outlining your position and supporting it, you chose to cast to the internet a series of posts that contained nothing more than variations on "you're an idiot". Needless to say, such a point of argument contained no eloquence nor thought-provoking nature. Rather, it implied that at the time and apparently at this time as well, you were unwilling to engage in actual discussion and just fell into the most base of emotional discourse, calling someone else stupid for not agreeing with you. So, I chose to answer your post, rarely I'll admit as I prefer discussion rather than just trading insults and so I try to avoid responding to your posts unless you've made a good point, and being in a good mood felt like being a little playful and so sarcastically referenced your above insults to Don T.
"Oh I see. You were picking and choosing to suit your predetermined conclusion. That does seem to be very typical of objectivists when they are talking about anything "empirical" like empirical evidence. Um... you found certain parts of the definition of empirical to be amusing? OK....."
Now THAT is an interesting assertion.Speaking of "picking and choosing to suit (my) predetermined conclusion", you somehow managed to completely gloss over these inflammatory statements from carcass93:
"Our cheap-deaf-dumb-agressive "objectivists" would be surprised by the following, no doubt"
Looking at this statement, one quickly sees that there are only cheap shots, vast insulting generalities (ie, 'those who don't agree with me are deaf, dumb, etc) and contains a point of hypocrisy (ie, those who disagree are aggressive, but somehow this insulting post in the lone asylum for scientific discussion does not qualify). Yet, you completely step past those very poor argumental points, don't try to check them or call them into question as you would anyone not sharing your views on audio. Instead, you try to find a non-existent conflict within the definition I took the time to transcribe on it somehow having origins in medical terminology.
These behaviours on your part imply that it is you, on the other hand, who is choosing to suit your predetermined conclusion that you and those you agree with are automatically correct and that those who disagree are working from a point of bias. To which, I strongly recommend you seek out my post the other day that contained several good quotes (admittedly imo) regarding naive realism and the bias blind spot as it relates to individual perspectives in disagreement and perceptions of the bias-less nature of one's own group affiliation.
As for the parts of the definition I found amusing, I refer you again to carcass93's post, in particular the last assertion (being made without grounds). There the original poster stated unequivocably that "objectivists" (I use quotation marks here as it is being used as a derogatory label as opposed to an identification of any actual ideal affiliation) did not know the definition of the word "empirical" yet his quoting of the stripped down Webster's definition (which I as I previously noted is intended for casual use and not intended to provide evidence in any manner of etymological dispute as is the Oxford's primary role) in conjunction with that statement imply that he, as opposed to "objectivists" was in possession of such knowledge of the definition. In this attempt to further insult the intelligence and knowledge of anyone who he does not agree with, he made the gaff of using a definition as evidence that when further looked into actually undermined his posiiton. When I provided the Oxford defintion (how I do love that dictionary), I simply found some pleasure in identifying those components that worked contrary to carcass93's position. It is an intellectual pleasure akin to that which drives debate in academia to find evidence counter to the insulting claims being made by someone certain in their position yet not appreciating that their views are made emotionally, not intellectually. Come now, surely you've had this pleasure in your past academic experience and in your career.
"Where did I make that assertion? You seem to be imagining things."That assertion was made in the very title of your post. You may be "imagining" something else, but you wrote: "so you think subjectivists are MDs." An assertion not supported by anything I had written in my post other than a part of the definition that implied medical origins for the term. You may wish to reread the half-thought you typed up before casting further aspersions against my comments.
Edits: 07/05/08Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]