Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 11:54:41 GMT
Just a general reply to that, debates become fragmented if you hop all over the place, hence wanting to get one point cleared up at a time. You can question whoever you like, I'm in no position to stop that, but if the rules of this forum are that the person making a positive assertion doesn't carry the burden of proof, then this will be one of the very few debating platforms anywhere where that would be the case. This is why I'm waiting for Oldie to demonstrate that what he said is correct. Once he's done that I'll thank him for the clarification and take a look at what he's said. I'm here to learn more than anything. I wasn't aware there were so many rules about debating on a football forum? You seem happy to change the narrative for what suits your agenda by requesting to post links with OB about a discussion of opportunity vs outcome. But when OB and myself ask you a question that is relevant to the discussion, you don't believe you should be answering that. To summarise: - You want Oldie to clarify something - Oldie has refused that he won't debate with you after previous history - You keep pushing - OB asked you a question, you refused to answer as your point about Oldie hasn't been answered from Oldie. - I asked you a question, you refuse to answer as your point about Oldie hasn't been answered from Oldie. - You state that we should change the narrative until Oldie has answered your question and giving proof that you deem to be adequate. - You state that changing the narrative would become complicated for the discussion. - You are more than happy to suggest changing the narrative with OB about outcome vs opportunity. - By changing this, you will be posting articles for others to read, rather than your own opinion. - You then state that your intentions are pure and you're only here to learn. Doesn't seem to be much learning going on here, only that you would like to control the narrative whilst refusing to answer any questions that are put to you. Do you not feel the need to respond to people's questions? All this seems a bit... Ironic? Not changing anything, just attempting to do what happens in every debate I have everywhere, address one point before moving on to the next. It's not for me to decide whether or not Oldie's supporting evidence is adequate / sufficient / credible, forums will always be a diverse mixture of views, people usually put their best evidence forward and let others draw conclusions, that's how it works in my experience anyway. The questions I've been asked are strawmen anyway, I've been asked to defend a position that I haven't proposed. Yes, I'll provide my opinion, and hopefully credible supporting evidence, when I have a position to defend. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jun 19, 2020 12:48:58 GMT
Happy to review the evidence for your initial assertion if you will post it? You're initial assertion to us, on here. My original assertion was that Churchill was elected in 1951. Happy to post links to historical records to demonstrate that this actually happened. Ha very good. You're not really interested in debate then? You said you had evidence that BAME had equal opportunities did you not? |
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 19, 2020 13:16:45 GMT
My original assertion was that Churchill was elected in 1951. Happy to post links to historical records to demonstrate that this actually happened. Ha very good. You're not really interested in debate then? You said you had evidence that BAME had equal opportunities did you not? With respect Officer, I don't think Jung did say that. I've just read all his posts and I cannot see that he said he had evidence of equal opportunities for BAME. He has, however, challenged Oldie to provide evidence of his assertion that there aren't equal opportunities for BAME. He did say that he would back up any points of his own with factual peer reviewed evidence but he has not actually put his side forward yet so there does not appear to be anything for him to provide evidence for. It is not fair to ask someone to provide evidence for something that they haven't said. All Oldie has to do is provide the evidence for his view and if it is credible then Jung will need to step back. After all, this is exactly what led to all the nastiness between Gassy and Nobby when Nobby said something about Communists and Gassy pursued him relentlessly for evidence. When Nobby did eventually provide the evidence the damage between the two had already been done. Nobody came out of that exchange looking good so let's try not to have it repeated with this new poster.
Just my thoughts and observations. I offer no opinion on the subject at hand. I don't know you, Oldie, Gassy or Jung but I don't know why General Chat can't have debates without someone being rounded on all the time. Oldie's view of Jung is no more important than Jung's view of Oldie. None of us know the whole truth of what happened between them.
PS - I'm not having a pop at you individually.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 13:30:33 GMT
Amazing to see many things related to Colston still being removed around Bristol. Stained glass windows now.
Funny how a conscience has grown so quickly.
Do wonder what was holding it back all of those years?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 19, 2020 13:45:11 GMT
Ha very good. You're not really interested in debate then? You said you had evidence that BAME had equal opportunities did you not? With respect Officer, I don't think Jung did say that. I've just read all his posts and I cannot see that he said he had evidence of equal opportunities for BAME. He has, however, challenged Oldie to provide evidence of his assertion that there aren't equal opportunities for BAME. He did say that he would back up any points of his own with factual peer reviewed evidence but he has not actually put his side forward yet so there does not appear to be anything for him to provide evidence for. It is not fair to ask someone to provide evidence for something that they haven't said. All Oldie has to do is provide the evidence for his view and if it is credible then Jung will need to step back. After all, this is exactly what led to all the nastiness between Gassy and Nobby when Nobby said something about Communists and Gassy pursued him relentlessly for evidence. When Nobby did eventually provide the evidence the damage between the two had already been done. Nobody came out of that exchange looking good so let's try not to have it repeated with this new poster.
Just my thoughts and observations. I offer no opinion on the subject at hand. I don't know you, Oldie, Gassy or Jung but I don't know why General Chat can't have debates without someone being rounded on all the time. Oldie's view of Jung is no more important than Jung's view of Oldie. None of us know the whole truth of what happened between them.
PS - I'm not having a pop at you individually.
Tbf, Nobby never actually provided any evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 19, 2020 14:10:46 GMT
I wasn't aware there were so many rules about debating on a football forum? You seem happy to change the narrative for what suits your agenda by requesting to post links with OB about a discussion of opportunity vs outcome. But when OB and myself ask you a question that is relevant to the discussion, you don't believe you should be answering that. To summarise: - You want Oldie to clarify something - Oldie has refused that he won't debate with you after previous history - You keep pushing - OB asked you a question, you refused to answer as your point about Oldie hasn't been answered from Oldie. - I asked you a question, you refuse to answer as your point about Oldie hasn't been answered from Oldie. - You state that we should change the narrative until Oldie has answered your question and giving proof that you deem to be adequate. - You state that changing the narrative would become complicated for the discussion. - You are more than happy to suggest changing the narrative with OB about outcome vs opportunity. - By changing this, you will be posting articles for others to read, rather than your own opinion. - You then state that your intentions are pure and you're only here to learn. Doesn't seem to be much learning going on here, only that you would like to control the narrative whilst refusing to answer any questions that are put to you. Do you not feel the need to respond to people's questions? All this seems a bit... Ironic? Not changing anything, just attempting to do what happens in every debate I have everywhere, address one point before moving on to the next. It's not for me to decide whether or not Oldie's supporting evidence is adequate / sufficient / credible, forums will always be a diverse mixture of views, people usually put their best evidence forward and let others draw conclusions, that's how it works in my experience anyway. The questions I've been asked are strawmen anyway, I've been asked to defend a position that I haven't proposed. Yes, I'll provide my opinion, and hopefully credible supporting evidence, when I have a position to defend. But you are happy to change. You've changed from Churchill to racism already. Now you're happy to change with OB, but only on your terms. So that's exactly what you're doing. I'm not asking you for your position to defend something, I'm asking for your opinion. Which you conveniently won't give. You claimed that Oldie had said "How about skin colour being a barrier to progress in UK politics, you claimed this was the case, shall we do that?". Firstly, can you please show me where Oldie had said that. Surely if you accuse someone of saying something, you need to show that's what they said? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just don't remember seeing it. Al had said that the UK isn't institutionally racist and that he's offended anyone would suggest that. I've wanted him to back that up, but he refuses to debate me. Funny, I don't see anyone pushing Al for an answer on such a statement. But they're more than happy to call Oldie out because he refuses to debate with someone. Marshy just yesterday had accused me of belittling and insulting him, but couldn't find any evidence of that. Hypocrisy at it's finest in here. You say you're here to learn, but won't enter debate unless you can only post your own articles. How are you supposed to learn from that? You say you're for a debate, but your posts personally attack Oldie stating, " Based on the hate filled diatribe you've turned this thread into". I honestly have no interest in upsetting anybodyWhere is the debate or learning? You've admitted that you came to this forum just to challenge him yet said, " I honestly have no interest in upsetting anybody". Just seems a bit suspicious. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 15:16:19 GMT
Amazing to see many things related to Colston still being removed around Bristol. Stained glass windows now. Funny how a conscience has grown so quickly. Do wonder what was holding it back all of those years? That’s the big question isn’t it? Apparently 2% of Bristol signed the removal petition, one would suspect that were that petition initiated today it would be overwhelmingly more. I can’t help but think that there is a lot of white angst going on whipped up by social media that is driving it. Most people will undoubtedly argue, probably rightly, that “better now than never”, but I always have suspicions about people’s motives when these things are done as a ‘reaction’ to current events. It’s human nature to jump on bandwagons. Let’s see if anyone still remembers the name Colston, or George Floyd for that matter, in a years time when CV has been relegated to a footnote and climate change and Brexit are the big issues facing society again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 15:21:29 GMT
Amazing to see many things related to Colston still being removed around Bristol. Stained glass windows now. Funny how a conscience has grown so quickly. Do wonder what was holding it back all of those years? That’s the big question isn’t it? Apparently 2% of Bristol signed the removal petition, one would suspect that were that petition initiated today it would be overwhelmingly more. I can’t help but think that there is a lot of white angst going on whipped up by social media that is driving it. Most people will undoubtedly argue, probably rightly, that “better now than never”, but I always have suspicions about people’s motives when these things are done as a ‘reaction’ to current events. It’s human nature to jump on bandwagons. Let’s see if anyone still remembers the name Colston, or George Floyd for that matter, in a years time when CV has been relegated to a footnote and climate change and Brexit are the big issues facing society again. That's my a day I look forward to it as an indicator, at least, that some of the equality issues prevalent today have been addressed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 17:44:27 GMT
Not changing anything, just attempting to do what happens in every debate I have everywhere, address one point before moving on to the next. It's not for me to decide whether or not Oldie's supporting evidence is adequate / sufficient / credible, forums will always be a diverse mixture of views, people usually put their best evidence forward and let others draw conclusions, that's how it works in my experience anyway. The questions I've been asked are strawmen anyway, I've been asked to defend a position that I haven't proposed. Yes, I'll provide my opinion, and hopefully credible supporting evidence, when I have a position to defend. But you are happy to change. You've changed from Churchill to racism already. Now you're happy to change with OB, but only on your terms. So that's exactly what you're doing. I'm not asking you for your position to defend something, I'm asking for your opinion. Which you conveniently won't give. You claimed that Oldie had said "How about skin colour being a barrier to progress in UK politics, you claimed this was the case, shall we do that?". Firstly, can you please show me where Oldie had said that. Surely if you accuse someone of saying something, you need to show that's what they said? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just don't remember seeing it. Al had said that the UK isn't institutionally racist and that he's offended anyone would suggest that. I've wanted him to back that up, but he refuses to debate me. Funny, I don't see anyone pushing Al for an answer on such a statement. But they're more than happy to call Oldie out because he refuses to debate with someone. Marshy just yesterday had accused me of belittling and insulting him, but couldn't find any evidence of that. Hypocrisy at it's finest in here. You say you're here to learn, but won't enter debate unless you can only post your own articles. How are you supposed to learn from that? You say you're for a debate, but your posts personally attack Oldie stating, " Based on the hate filled diatribe you've turned this thread into". I honestly have no interest in upsetting anybodyWhere is the debate or learning? You've admitted that you came to this forum just to challenge him yet said, " I honestly have no interest in upsetting anybody". Just seems a bit suspicious. You are confusing yourself. I'm replying directly, you are conflating multiple events into single sentences. I'm happy to discuss multiple subjects at the same time, sure, why not, but Oldie still hasn't justified his claim, it started on Page 28 of this thread for your ease of reference. I'm not responsible for your interaction with Al. If he's made a positive assertion then ask him to justify it or withdraw it, that's normal, if he can't or won't, or won't at least re-visit what he's said and qualify it in some way, then it becomes his problem and you've done a good job in recognising and exposing the flaw in his position. If you have a specific question for me which doesn't read as an attempt to move the discussion away from the burden of proof, which it appears Oldie is unable to meet, so by default he's conceding the point and should acknowledge that, then I'll be delighted to reply. This is what happened with OB, he asked a direct question which didn't deflect from Oldie's claim, so I replied. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 17:48:22 GMT
My original assertion was that Churchill was elected in 1951. Happy to post links to historical records to demonstrate that this actually happened. Ha very good. You're not really interested in debate then? You said you had evidence that BAME had equal opportunities did you not? No, I didn't say that. Would you like the gumball analogy? I'm here for a while, so rather than you and I get off on the wrong foot, it may be useful, it'll help you understand what I mean when I reference something. |
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 19, 2020 18:27:05 GMT
You mean this Jung?
Dillahunty's explanation of the philosophical burden of proof is ably presented in his 'gumball' analogy: if a hypothetical jar is filled with an unknown quantity of gumballs, any positive claim regarding there being an odd, or even, number of gumballs has to be logically regarded as highly suspect in the absence of supporting evidence. Following this, if one does not believe the unsubstantiated claim that "the number of gumballs is even", it does NOT automatically mean (or even imply) that one 'must' believe that the number is odd. Similarly, disbelief in the unsupported claim "There is a god" does NOT automatically mean that one 'must' believe that there is no god. This line of reasoning is intended to demonstrate that the common retort, "What is your proof that there is no god?" is, in fact, a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof.
It explains quite nicely what happens a lot on these threads in General Chat. I was going to post something similar earlier but this explains it much better than I could have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 18:50:34 GMT
You mean this Jung? Dillahunty's explanation of the philosophical burden of proof is ably presented in his 'gumball' analogy: if a hypothetical jar is filled with an unknown quantity of gumballs, any positive claim regarding there being an odd, or even, number of gumballs has to be logically regarded as highly suspect in the absence of supporting evidence. Following this, if one does not believe the unsubstantiated claim that "the number of gumballs is even", it does NOT automatically mean (or even imply) that one 'must' believe that the number is odd. Similarly, disbelief in the unsupported claim "There is a god" does NOT automatically mean that one 'must' believe that there is no god. This line of reasoning is intended to demonstrate that the common retort, "What is your proof that there is no god?" is, in fact, a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof.It explains quite nicely what happens a lot on these threads in General Chat. I was going to post something similar earlier but this explains it much better than I could have. Exactly this, there's a jar of gumballs, you ask if I think the quantity within is odd, I reply 'No', this does not mean that I have positively asserted that the answer is 'Even'. Top Tip. Do not try to work this out after 6 pints of Natch  Ref Dilahunty's position on theology, we can do that if you like, start a new thread, I'll be right along. |
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 19, 2020 19:08:55 GMT
You mean this Jung? Dillahunty's explanation of the philosophical burden of proof is ably presented in his 'gumball' analogy: if a hypothetical jar is filled with an unknown quantity of gumballs, any positive claim regarding there being an odd, or even, number of gumballs has to be logically regarded as highly suspect in the absence of supporting evidence. Following this, if one does not believe the unsubstantiated claim that "the number of gumballs is even", it does NOT automatically mean (or even imply) that one 'must' believe that the number is odd. Similarly, disbelief in the unsupported claim "There is a god" does NOT automatically mean that one 'must' believe that there is no god. This line of reasoning is intended to demonstrate that the common retort, "What is your proof that there is no god?" is, in fact, a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof.It explains quite nicely what happens a lot on these threads in General Chat. I was going to post something similar earlier but this explains it much better than I could have. Exactly this, there's a jar of gumballs, you ask if I think the quantity within is odd, I reply 'No', this does not mean that I have positively asserted that the answer is 'Even'. Top Tip. Do not try to work this out after 6 pints of Natch Ref Dilahunty's position on theology, we can do that if you like, start a new thread, I'll be right along. And this is what has happened here. You have challenged Oldie on his stance and now it has somehow turned round to people insisting that you provide evidence to the contrary even though you have not stated a belief in the contrary. It happens so often on here.
As for religion, nuts to that. I believe there is only one Universal supreme being and he controls the matrix that we all live in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 19:22:04 GMT
This thread has become hilarious, a version of Dante's Divine Comedy.
Convoluted distortions based upon personal prejudices and possible inferiority complexes. Dante had it right in his poem when (quote)
"In the poem, Hell is depicted as nine concentric circles of torment located within the Earth; it is the "realm ... of those who have rejected spiritual values by yielding to bestial appetites or violence, or by perverting their human intellect to fraud or malice against their fellowmen"
Recognise this anyone?
😂😂😂😂🤔🤔
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2020 19:37:10 GMT
Exactly this, there's a jar of gumballs, you ask if I think the quantity within is odd, I reply 'No', this does not mean that I have positively asserted that the answer is 'Even'. Top Tip. Do not try to work this out after 6 pints of Natch Ref Dilahunty's position on theology, we can do that if you like, start a new thread, I'll be right along. And this is what has happened here. You have challenged Oldie on his stance and now it has somehow turned round to people insisting that you provide evidence to the contrary even though you have not stated a belief in the contrary. It happens so often on here.
As for religion, nuts to that. I believe there is only one Universal supreme being and he controls the matrix that we all live in.
Next will be some kind of strawman intended to distract, if it's not been posted already. |
|
|
|
Post by inee on Jun 20, 2020 2:06:03 GMT
Exactly this, there's a jar of gumballs, you ask if I think the quantity within is odd, I reply 'No', this does not mean that I have positively asserted that the answer is 'Even'. Top Tip. Do not try to work this out after 6 pints of Natch Ref Dilahunty's position on theology, we can do that if you like, start a new thread, I'll be right along. And this is what has happened here. You have challenged Oldie on his stance and now it has somehow turned round to people insisting that you provide evidence to the contrary even though you have not stated a belief in the contrary. It happens so often on here.
As for religion, nuts to that. I believe there is only one Universal supreme being and he controls the matrix that we all live in.
You mean shaggy is the one |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jun 20, 2020 8:38:47 GMT
Ha very good. You're not really interested in debate then? You said you had evidence that BAME had equal opportunities did you not? No, I didn't say that. Would you like the gumball analogy? I'm here for a while, so rather than you and I get off on the wrong foot, it may be useful, it'll help you understand what I mean when I reference something. My apologies then for my misunderstanding. What is it youd like to talk about then? Do you have an opinion youd like to share? |
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Jun 20, 2020 9:06:03 GMT
This thread has become hilarious, a version of Dante's Divine Comedy. Convoluted distortions based upon personal prejudices and possible inferiority complexes. Dante had it right in his poem when (quote) "In the poem, Hell is depicted as nine concentric circles of torment located within the Earth; it is the "realm ... of those who have rejected spiritual values by yielding to bestial appetites or violence, or by perverting their human intellect to fraud or malice against their fellowmen" Recognise this anyone? 😂😂😂😂🤔🤔 Become hilarious? Jung has come on here, in a sober and reasonable manner, and invited you to defend the position that you took. And, instead, you quote a 14 th century poet. Been at the old Chateau Croesus again? I don`t know what your problem with Jung is. He doesn`t seem to bear you any animus, despite you losing your temper, and resorting to calling him names. Do you prefer the car crash that the Corona virus thread descended into, rather than the civilised exchange of facts that Jung has asked for? You said that you can`t see your original assertion is inflammatory. In this day and age, I`d say that asserting that people are being denied equal opportunity ( at least in the political sphere ) because of skin colour, is as inflammatory as it gets. It`s the sort of rhetoric that demagogues the world over, use to inflame passions. If you believe it what you wrote, then take up Jung`s offer to prove it. If there`s something not right about him, or his argument, I`m sure we`ll all soon see it. Just do it! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 9:14:29 GMT
No, I didn't say that. Would you like the gumball analogy? I'm here for a while, so rather than you and I get off on the wrong foot, it may be useful, it'll help you understand what I mean when I reference something. My apologies then for my misunderstanding. What is it youd like to talk about then? Do you have an opinion youd like to share? On what topic? |
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 20, 2020 9:54:41 GMT
This thread has become hilarious, a version of Dante's Divine Comedy. Convoluted distortions based upon personal prejudices and possible inferiority complexes. Dante had it right in his poem when (quote) "In the poem, Hell is depicted as nine concentric circles of torment located within the Earth; it is the "realm ... of those who have rejected spiritual values by yielding to bestial appetites or violence, or by perverting their human intellect to fraud or malice against their fellowmen" Recognise this anyone? 😂😂😂😂🤔🤔 Become hilarious? Jung has come on here, in a sober and reasonable manner, and invited you to defend the position that you took. And, instead, you quote a 14 th century poet. Been at the old Chateau Croesus again? I don`t know what your problem with Jung is. He doesn`t seem to bear you any animus, despite you losing your temper, and resorting to calling him names. Do you prefer the car crash that the Corona virus thread descended into, rather than the civilised exchange of facts that Jung has asked for? You said that you can`t see your original assertion is inflammatory. In this day and age, I`d say that asserting that people are being denied equal opportunity ( at least in the political sphere ) because of skin colour, is as inflammatory as it gets. It`s the sort of rhetoric that demagogues the world over, use to inflame passions. If you believe it what you wrote, then take up Jung`s offer to prove it. If there`s something not right about him, or his argument, I`m sure we`ll all soon see it. Just do it! Precisely. I reckon Jung is Oldie's nemesis. One can imagine that Oldie has lost a debate with Jung on the other forum and maybe felt a bit foolish and so won't engage with him on this forum for fear of it happening again. On here people no longer want to engage with Oldie as to do so means that you are rounded upon by his "gang" in the strange belief that a combination of the greater number of agreeing views coupled with the hounding of dissenting views somehow makes their view more important. Maybe Oldie didn't have the support on the other forum that he does on here. Or maybe he did but Jung won the debate anyway. Jung may be a dark horse but I have read nothing yet that suggests he wants anything other than to debate sensibly. Ok, he did say he was invited on here to challenge Oldie but that is not the same as coming on here to cause trouble. So my advice to Jung is not to get taken in by the deflection tactics, the use of strange quotes to try and change the subject, and to stay calm when others try to turn the tables and make out that you have said something you haven't.
|
|
