2 = many?

S

However, I suspect you know you are wrong and just like to bark

What is it I'm wrong about ?
Asking you to back up your assertions?
Or stating that generalizaing about a large group of citizens attitudes based upon one, or even a couple of articles or statements is illogical, irrational, ill advised, unfair and likely to be incorrect. ?

rickyp wrote:S

However, I suspect you know you are wrong and just like to bark

What is it I'm wrong about ?
Asking you to back up your assertions?
Or stating that generalizaing about a large group of citizens attitudes based upon one, or even a couple of articles or statements is illogical, irrational, ill advised, unfair and likely to be incorrect. ?

Ha. Make the bet.

Oh, boy. Looks like there is some cognitive dissonance going on. Two subtexts that I am picking up here:

1) Steve says he's better than Ricky (nee-ner-ner-nee-ner) because he puts in more links to back up his assertions. But when Ricky asks him to do so to back up a specific assertion, Steve accuses Ricky of playing a game, and implies that he would be justified in calling ricky a liar and... and...

2) Steve asserts that 'many' liberals have taken a particular line about Cain
Ricky says that while it may be the case that one or two have, he's not seen it himself, so can Steve show him (see 1). Steve proposes a bet that for every example he can find, Ricky pay $25, but if no examples are found, Steve will pay $25. However, this bet does not test the proposition that Steve made, or what ricky was saying. Given that Ricky's response at first was to concede that there may be a small number of examples, he'd be perfectly entitled to refuse the 'bet' on those terms.

The basic proposition is that "[X] Liberals have said/are saying a particular thing about Cain". The initial claim by Steve was:
X = 'many'. The response from Ricky was basically, that he can accept that X>0, but can we see how many 'many' is and whether X reaches that kind of level.

The bet as laid out is whether X=2

2 is not the same as 'many'.

But Steve is certainly good at the bully method of debate. Ricky, your last post was a good response, but perhaps not quite good enough to show the shoddy methods being employed.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:S

However, I suspect you know you are wrong and just like to bark

What is it I'm wrong about ?
Asking you to back up your assertions?
Or stating that generalizaing about a large group of citizens attitudes based upon one, or even a couple of articles or statements is illogical, irrational, ill advised, unfair and likely to be incorrect. ?

Ha. Make the bet.

Again, if you are sure there are not that many, then you have nothing to lose. Right?

I've used two, so how many more can there possibly be? To show what a sport I am, if I can find none, I'll make it $100. If I find some, I'll go $25 per at a maximum of 10. Since you know I'm wrong, go ahead, you have nothing to lose and a Benjamin to gain.

Otherwise, what's in it for me? Every time I make an assertion I have to provide at least how many sources? Two is not enough? I'm willing to go higher. You don't think I can, so there is no downside to you.

Go for it!

my money is on Steve,
am I right, Ricky is trying to claim Democrats have no problem with black conservatives?
hahaha, I have not read this entire thread but if that's what this is about, oh boy, count me in on this bet!

OF COURSE Liberals hate black conservatives, they, well they feel like they OWN blacks!
But then again, Lincoln was a Republican and Robert Byrd a Democrat so it sounds about right to me.

GMTom wrote:my money is on Steve,

well, the terms of the bet are rigged.
am I right, Ricky is trying to claim Democrats have no problem with black conservatives?[/quote]No, he's challenging Steve's assumption that such an attitude is clearly widespread and expressed. What's more, people can have a problem with black conservatives because they are conservatives, rather than because they are black. To demonstrate racism, you guys need some kind of intent.

You know, stuff like the allusions to lynching that some kooks took to Tea Party events.

hahaha, I have not read this entire thread but if that's what this is about, oh boy, count me in on this bet!

Perhaps you should read the thread, and then see if you can understand why I am saying that the bet is a bust.

OF COURSE Liberals hate black conservatives, they, well they feel like they OWN blacks!
But then again, Lincoln was a Republican and Robert Byrd a Democrat so it sounds about right to me.

Sheesh. Yet Kennedy and LBJ were Democrats and Strom Thurmond was a Republican from 1964. Perhaps simple namechecking is not much more rigorous than blanket generalisations.

Lots of Blacks vote Democrat. Yet before WWII that wasn't so much the case. Clearly things can change. Perhaps the 'Southern Strategy', opposition to Civil Rights legislation, acceptance of 'Dixiecrats' and policies that tend to be harsher on poor blacks have had more of an effect on voting patterns than the Democrats going out and 'Owning' blacks.

But hey, perhaps comparing people to slaveowners is about as honourable as a Godwin. Classy as ever, Tommy.

Doctor Fate wrote:Otherwise, what's in it for me? Every time I make an assertion I have to provide at least how many sources? Two is not enough? I'm willing to go higher. You don't think I can, so there is no downside to you.

Go for it!

Oh, my goodness! How many times doe it have to be pointed out that proving that something happened a few times is not the same as proving that it happens lots of times?

You started off claiming 'many'. Not 'some', or 'any'. So define 'many' for us, because I think it's usually considered to be a greater number than 2, or 10.

If Ricky thinks the deal unfair, I'll tell you what: I'll go this far . . .

I've named a few already, if I can't find six more, Ricky wins $150. If I can, he loses $150. It can't be more fair than that. So, will he accept . . . ???

So, it is now decreed that 'many' Democrats and left wingers = '8 out of the hundreds, nay thousands who make public statements and write articles'.

What does that make 100... A gajillion?

All hail the New Math.

danivon wrote:So, it is now decreed that 'many' Democrats and left wingers = '8 out of the hundreds, nay thousands who make public statements and write articles'.

What does that make 100... A gajillion?

All hail the New Math.

Breaking my rule to post a few questions that I don't care how you answer or if you answer:

1. Who appointed you Ricky's lawyer?

2. Is Ricky incapable of defending himself?

3. It's interesting . . . I didn't use the word "many" until page 3. I started with one liberal and one liberal who did not question the assertion that Cain is “a black man that knows his place.” When did "many" turn into the standard? This went on CNN without challenge. Does that not give it some sort of mainstream credibility?

4. I wrote "many" in response to Ricky writing, "Who's claiming Cains' success proves conservative racism? Names and sources please..." The clear implication was that he didn't read my first post or that he'd forgotten it. I said "many" in response to Ricky's implication that there were none. I've since posted a couple and am willing to post more--if Ricky wants to pony up.

5. How many would satisfy Ricky's lawyer? And, why should I expend hours when it would not be enough? I've already established that several have said it. What is the threshold?

6. Since when does questioning the interaction between two people become your personal business? What exactly are you adding to the conversation?

Let me answer the last one for you: nothing. You remain a troll and fully worthy of "ignore." I don't care how many "cool" forums you are invited to participate on, you are nothing but an expert in creating strife.

In other words, get a life Owen.

Doctor Fate wrote:[Breaking my rule to post a few questions that I don't care how you answer or if you answer:

Oh, but I will answer them

1. Who appointed you Ricky's lawyer?

No-one did. And I'm not acting as a 'lawyer'. I'm observing the pattern of debate.

2. Is Ricky incapable of defending himself?

No, he's capable. I just didn't want him to think that no-one else saw his position, or that you'd managed to hoodwink everyone with your sophistry.

3. It's interesting . . . I didn't use the word "many" until page 3. I started with one liberal and one liberal who did not question the assertion that Cain is “a black man that knows his place.” When did "many" turn into the standard? This went on CNN without challenge. Does that not give it some sort of mainstream credibility?

Well, no. You started off with the basic idea that it's endemic to start with. You were making out that it's basically a Liberal position. Later that was drawn down to many, and the specific point that Cain is 'acceptable' to conservatives for a Black man

4. I wrote "many" in response to Ricky writing, "Who's claiming Cains' success proves conservative racism? Names and sources please..." The clear implication was that he didn't read my first post or that he'd forgotten it. I said "many" in response to Ricky's implication that there were none. I've since posted a couple and am willing to post more--if Ricky wants to pony up.

He didn't imply much. He asked for examples. You are acting as if he asserted that there were none, and set up a phoney bet based on your own version of what he said so that when he didn't take it up you could declare victory.

5. How many would satisfy Ricky's lawyer? And, why should I expend hours when it would not be enough? I've already established that several have said it. What is the threshold?

well, rather than a set of individual links to articles that may skirt around the issues, how about some more statistical evidence of prevalence? You are the dictionary guy here, so I figure you know what 'many' means.

6. Since when does questioning the interaction between two people become your personal business? What exactly are you adding to the conversation?

Since when am I to treat conversations on a publicly accessible web forum, on a thread where several people have made comment, as if it were private?

Let me answer the last one for you: nothing.

You still love putting words in my mouth, huh? And doing the same to Ricky is (deciding what his question 'implies') is no different. What I tried to do was to point out your tactics.

No point responding to the last part though. I've made my point on your generalisations, 2=many problem and your bully tactics. I'll wait till you pull another shonky move before calling you on it, but meantime I will comment as I see fit.

Anyway, Cain's problem is not that he's black. It's that he seems to be losing the capacity to answer straightforward questions. His policy on tax is a great slogan but beyond that there are questions. He's moved all over the place over the harassment allegations, which remain allegations as far as I can see, but the way he's dealt with them is chaotic. The Libya thing is bizarre. Was he unable to answer because he didn't know what was happening in Libya? Because he was trying desperately to avoid giving Obama any credit? Because he didn't understand the question?

Who is really judging Cain? Republican voters are. They will decide if he gets a ticket in next year's primaries. A lot of them took a goof look at him, and he seems to be losing their support. If that really just comes down to prevalent liberal opinion, then what does that say about Republican supporters? Are they so weak that a dodgy op-ed in a metropolitan, elitist paper or on HuffPo will get them all squiffy?

I doubt it. He looked good in the shop window, but when they went in and took a closer look the flaws emerged.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:[Breaking my rule to post a few questions that I don't care how you answer or if you answer:

Oh, but I will answer them

Well, what a thrill.

1. Who appointed you Ricky's lawyer?

No-one did. And I'm not acting as a 'lawyer'. I'm observing the pattern of debate.

Uh-huh. That is an interesting use of "observe." Please cite a definition wherein an "observer" takes a partisan position. To "observe" is to passively note, not to interject one's opinions. Let's see how passive you are.

2. Is Ricky incapable of defending himself?

No, he's capable. I just didn't want him to think that no-one else saw his position, or that you'd managed to hoodwink everyone with your sophistry.

Only you set out to hoodwink with sophistry. Rarely are people fooled, have the wool pulled over their eyes, or tricked by moronic arguments. That's why you fail.

3. It's interesting . . . I didn't use the word "many" until page 3. I started with one liberal and one liberal who did not question the assertion that Cain is “a black man that knows his place.” When did "many" turn into the standard? This went on CNN without challenge. Does that not give it some sort of mainstream credibility?

Well, no. You started off with the basic idea that it's endemic to start with. You were making out that it's basically a Liberal position. Later that was drawn down to many, and the specific point that Cain is 'acceptable' to conservatives for a Black man

No, I started with one quote on CNN that the host failed to challenge. Then I noted a pattern as the press went after Rubio for . . . failing to be oppressed enough or something.

I didn't make out "that it's basically a Liberal position," although I could have. Name a prominent conservative minority who does not undergo these kind of attacks. This is what happens--Palin, Bachmann, Justice Thomas, and the list goes on. Even Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell have been attacked because of their race--and it wasn't by conservatives.

I know it's inconvenient for you. It also happens to be true.

4. I wrote "many" in response to Ricky writing, "Who's claiming Cains' success proves conservative racism? Names and sources please..." The clear implication was that he didn't read my first post or that he'd forgotten it. I said "many" in response to Ricky's implication that there were none. I've since posted a couple and am willing to post more--if Ricky wants to pony up.

He didn't imply much. He asked for examples. You are acting as if he asserted that there were none, and set up a phoney bet based on your own version of what he said so that when he didn't take it up you could declare victory.

A flat-out lie. It's not a "phoney bet." If he really believes it's rare or non-existent, he should accept. If he thinks it is fairly common, he could make a counter-proposal.

Here was the standard he set:: "names and sources." Like it was impossible? I have given three and could provide more. However, I can't prove that every liberal thinks this way because they don't and because not all who do are stupid enough to say so on the record.

5. How many would satisfy Ricky's lawyer? And, why should I expend hours when it would not be enough? I've already established that several have said it. What is the threshold?

well, rather than a set of individual links to articles that may skirt around the issues, how about some more statistical evidence of prevalence? You are the dictionary guy here, so I figure you know what 'many' means.

Oh please. That is idiotic. A survey? That is a ridiculous standard and you know it.

"Many" was not my standard. I never set out to prove "many." The bigger bit of proof is that it has occurred (like on CNN) and what liberals have said, "That's wrong"?

If by "many," you think I should prove that half of liberals have said these things or believe them, you are setting a standard that is impossible. Again, if Ricky thinks I am wrong, he is free to take the bet or make a counterproposal. I will not, however, try to establish that 10 million liberals hold racist positions against conservative minorities.

You don't think his statement implied few or no liberals think that way. That is not a neutral observation--it is your biased opinion. He clearly doubted my ability to provide any--otherwise he would not have googled before posting.

6. Since when does questioning the interaction between two people become your personal business? What exactly are you adding to the conversation?

Since when am I to treat conversations on a publicly accessible web forum, on a thread where several people have made comment, as if it were private?

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said they were private. Still, you took one side, as if Ricky was incapable of doing so. Why?

Because you are a troll. Trolls troll. It's your nature. It's why I don't care for you and why I will now return you to "ignore." You deserve, actually, worse than that. You've gone after me personally and intentionally so. You are such a brave man, you think. I believe you are a coward. If it were not for the anonymity the Internet affords you, you would never say the things you did about me.

Let me answer the last one for you: nothing.

You still love putting words in my mouth, huh? And doing the same to Ricky is (deciding what his question 'implies') is no different. What I tried to do was to point out your tactics.

Again, so neutral in your "observing."

My tactics? Funny. All I did was say "I can prove what I'm claiming, make it worth my while."

If he didn't believe me, he could call my bluff. That's not a tactic. Calling me names is a tactic. You think I'm a bully because I said I could prove what I said? Yes, what a vicious "tactic." A man says something I know is wrong, so I offer him a wager. To you, that's bullying. That's fine. I think you're a coward. Look both words up. I don't think you'll find "offering a wager" as a definition of bullying, but you will find an 8 x 10 glossy of your face on the "coward" page.

No point responding to the last part though. I've made my point on your generalisations, 2=many problem and your bully tactics. I'll wait till you pull another shonky move before calling you on it, but meantime I will comment as I see fit.

Well, have fun mate. To me, your words are a waste of time, energy, and space. You live to troll. Troll on.

(yawn)