What metric to apply to a test is a completely nontrivial issue, and the fact that you refer to such a crucial issue as “quibbling” shows how little you understand about the issue.
Yes, it is, when you’re criticizing an entire century-old well-developed field with an abundance of materials online.
I’m not criticizing the field. I’m asking you to answer a simple question, and you’re refusing.
At this point, the burden is not on the person talking about intelligence.
Simply declaring yourself to not have the burden of proof does nothing.
I see you didn’t understand the point of that.
And so, instead of explaining, you’re simply telling me to “think a little harder”.
(Hint: they don’t take the form ‘A, therefore, A’.)
“A, therefore A” is a circular argument. Most people put more effort into disguising the circular nature of their arguments, but that doesn’t mean that yours is not circular.
Let me try again: when a newcomer and an oldtimer disagree on what is appropriate for a site, when the oldtimer was around before the site existed, helped make it, and is a major contributor by comments, articles, and karma, which is more likely to be correct? I’m thinking… it’s probably not the newcomer, and that arguing that is astoundingly presumptuous of them.
I think it is astoundingly presumptuous for you to dismiss any criticism of your behavior with “I’ve been around here longer than you and have lots of karma”. Your behavior is at blatant odds with what I understand to be the goals of this website. Either you are indeed acting contrary to those goals, or I have a deep misunderstanding about the goals of this website.
Nice walk back there.
I am not walking anything back. I deliberately included the word “appear” in my original post in recognition that this was merely the most likely explanation.
So to reiterate my previous question—you know, since you’re totally not trolling or anything, and you’re definitely arguing in good faith, and you’re surely not going to reply with just some more rhetoric and attempts to shame or nitpick irrelevant wording, in this thread or others—what is your actual problem with these concepts? Do you have data which refutes the relevant concepts entirely? Or what?
So, it’s “bullshit” when I ask you to clarify what you mean, but it’s okay for you to ask me to clarify what I am saying, even though you’ve made it absolutely clear that you have no intention whatsoever of listening to my point of view, have already made up your mind that I am wrong and refuse to listen to any contrary arguments, interpret everything I say through the filter of presuming bad faith, and are here simply to insult me? A discussion is a cooperative process. I can’t explain something to someone whose motive isn’t to understand, but to attack.
So to reiterate my previous question—you know, since you’re totally not trolling or anything, and you’re definitely arguing in good faith, and you’re surely not going to reply with just some more rhetoric and attempts to shame or nitpick irrelevant wording, in this thread or others—what is your actual problem with these concepts? Do you have data which refutes the relevant concepts entirely? Or what?
So, it’s “bullshit” when I ask you to clarify what you mean, but it’s okay for you to ask me to clarify what I am saying, even though you’ve made it absolutely clear that you have no intention whatsoever of listening to my point of view, have already made up your mind that I am wrong and refuse to listen to any contrary arguments, interpret everything I say through the filter of presuming bad faith, and are here simply to insult me? A discussion is a cooperative process. I can’t explain something to someone whose motive isn’t to understand, but to attack.
Tell you what, tell me what you meant by “Um, no, because the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs that were best ridden out lest it damage both allies’ long-term goals.” and I’ll try to explain what my issue here is.
And no, we’re not done here. You have been extremely rude, and that needs to be addressed.
No, we’re done. Conversation with you has proven on several topics to be a frustrating waste of my time. I think it’s better for both of us if I simply ignore you from now on on all topics. Maybe you’ll improve, but I doubt it.
What metric to apply to a test is a completely nontrivial issue, and the fact that you refer to such a crucial issue as “quibbling” shows how little you understand about the issue.
I’m not criticizing the field. I’m asking you to answer a simple question, and you’re refusing.
Simply declaring yourself to not have the burden of proof does nothing.
And so, instead of explaining, you’re simply telling me to “think a little harder”.
“A, therefore A” is a circular argument. Most people put more effort into disguising the circular nature of their arguments, but that doesn’t mean that yours is not circular.
I think it is astoundingly presumptuous for you to dismiss any criticism of your behavior with “I’ve been around here longer than you and have lots of karma”. Your behavior is at blatant odds with what I understand to be the goals of this website. Either you are indeed acting contrary to those goals, or I have a deep misunderstanding about the goals of this website.
I am not walking anything back. I deliberately included the word “appear” in my original post in recognition that this was merely the most likely explanation.
So, it’s “bullshit” when I ask you to clarify what you mean, but it’s okay for you to ask me to clarify what I am saying, even though you’ve made it absolutely clear that you have no intention whatsoever of listening to my point of view, have already made up your mind that I am wrong and refuse to listen to any contrary arguments, interpret everything I say through the filter of presuming bad faith, and are here simply to insult me? A discussion is a cooperative process. I can’t explain something to someone whose motive isn’t to understand, but to attack.
Exactly as predicted. I think we’re done here.
Tell you what, tell me what you meant by “Um, no, because the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs that were best ridden out lest it damage both allies’ long-term goals.” and I’ll try to explain what my issue here is.
And no, we’re not done here. You have been extremely rude, and that needs to be addressed.
No, we’re done. Conversation with you has proven on several topics to be a frustrating waste of my time. I think it’s better for both of us if I simply ignore you from now on on all topics. Maybe you’ll improve, but I doubt it.