54 replies to this topic

[(33724)]

And how can one be right all the time if your methods aren't foolproof?

I think my extra quote made your omission quite clear.

What did I neglect to cover?

Edited by (33724), 17 July 2008 - 12:37 PM.

[Sweeney]

And how can one be right all the time if your methods are foolproof?

First of all, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, assume you can read, and take that as "aren't foolproof".
Then I'll inform you that that was the point.

[(33724)]

It appears we can agree in the fact that what the police did was wrong and did infact violate his first ammendment rights?

Here is where we disagree. As long as there is some logical consistency, factual accuracy, or persuasive appeal to the opinionator's claim, we cannot refute the claim is inaccurate. The you're right, Im wrong context is elementary in nature but an actual fact based arguement would be "stimulating". Wouldnt you agree?

Edited by (33724), 17 July 2008 - 12:50 PM.

[Sweeney]

It appears we can agree in the fact that what the police did was wrong and did infact violate his first ammendment rights?

Here is where we disagree. As long as there is some logical consistency, factual accuracy, or persuasive appeal to the opinionator's claim, we cannot refute the claim is inaccurate. The you're right, Im wrong context is elementary in nature but an actual fact based arguement would be "stimulating". Wouldnt you agree?

Yes, and yes.

Except on the point of "persuasive appeal". How nice something sounds bears no relation to the truth and/or accuracy of the statement.

[33724]

Well in the case of persuasive appeal, I am speaking of only topics that can neither be proved or dissproved. In a debate that somebody can factually dissprove a theory, I would never accept any individuals alone account regardless of how persuasive it may be.