Oh why thank you.
“Neodoxy, clearly his point was just to make you shut up and go away. I hope he didn’t succeed.”
I’ve never been very good at debates on the internet. A big part of that is because I am good at picking my battles. When someone is spitting off incoherent doggerel like using economic jargon to say that the minimum wage decreases unemployment in most cases even thought this is disproved in basic micro courses, that is a fight that is in no way worth having, because it won’t go anywhere, and I have better ways to waste my time than by arguing with someone who is wrong, will not be convinced, and who will make me angry because I am arguing with them.
Saying you’re good at picking your battles implies that there’s an objective standard for picking battles. There isn’t.
Well played.
You let him off too easy! What is this “http” he talks about?
There are some pretty strange symbols too. What is “:” and “/” and “.”?
Enjoy your infinite regression, guys!
“Saying you’re good at picking your battles implies that there’s an objective standard for picking battles. There isn’t.”
I didn’t mean the implication then, there is only what I consider the standard to be, and by my standard I am good at it, and I think that few people would have a vastly different standard.
And why the f*** is it blue?
What are you talking about, Neodoxy? I’m pretty sure it’s red. And there’s this strange squiggly line beneath it when my rat hovers over it.
Just learned the “federal definition” of parental involvement in a student’s education.
Public education = child abuse
I have a story that leads to a “rant”, so there will be a point to this eventually.
Anyway at one of my jobs (PetSmart) I found out that recently that we are a “red store” because of an internal theft problem we had. I found out it was our previous janitor who left in August (I never asked why he left, the PetSmart reply is always “he’s no longer with us” about a fired employee, etc.) This morning I asked one of my managers about it and she said he stole $5,000 worth of flea and tick medications (over a period of time of course). During the sitaution they noticed they had a theft problem and contacted loss prevention, and by the time corporate responds my managers already had an idea of who it was. One morning corporate had someone staked out from 6 to 9 am in a car watching the back of the store and watched the janitor when he got off, and went to the back in some bushes and took two bags with him.
Now, when we take trash out and damaged goods we throw them away, we supposed to open any bags of food or anything else and dump them out so they can’t be used in anyway. He was being sneaky with stuff and hiding it. My managers told me he was also suspicously finding the package lock containers that are on more expensive medications to keep from being stolen under the shelves (he’s going to the register, unlocking them, and then saying he found them while he hides the products), and that he was always really urgent to take the trash out before he got off.
So they caught the guy, they had evidence, the had the paperwork from corporate, when confronted he played dumb and then said he’d pay back what he stole, when asked to sign a form consenting to his guilt he refused - I guess at this point he “quit.”
I asked if he went to jail and my manager said he didn’t because they didn’t have actual evidence (I guess the guy staking out didn’t take pictures) and he didn’t consent. I suppose PetSmart can’t do anything beyond that. The guy steals $5,000 worth of product over the course of a few months and gets away with it. Makes sense? I guess my rant has to do with how something like that can just happen, in all the paperwork and knowledge of the situation, someone can still get out with a couple thousand because they denied it and just walked off.
(Our store is a new store and for some reason has everything except security cameras, so he doesn’t have to hide too much what he’s doing, especially in the early morning when it’s just a manager, stocker, and janitor all busy with their own thing.)
That’s an unfortunate aspect of justice - even if you’re right and you have been violated to the greatest extent, if you have no evidence, then you have nothing. That’s life, I guess.
I’ve seen a few of your posts on here. Why do you insist on needing to clarify definitions for everything? By believing that definitions are circumstantial or relative, you must admit that you commit an ontological fallacy. How are we communicating at all but by using words to define the words we’re defining, thus negating any possibility of true communication. G.E. Moore would probably have a nice conversation with you, if you can even call it a conversation. It seems that when you are backed into a logical corner that you resort to the whole, “How do you define…” argument, thereby admitting to defining something differently than your intellectual opponent and finding a convenient back-door exist to the argument altogether. Weak.
Have you ever talked to left-anarchists, TR?
Nope, is that dude Auto one?
Uhm, I don’t quite think so.
You gain a certain appreciation for definitions of terms when you start talking to left anarchists. They thrive behind a mist of undefined words.
Wheylous, speaking of which, look at the post I made in MCB about language, I’d like to expand on leftists and language, but I feel like it’ll fall short of even being a criticism of people I’ve debated with online.
The only leftist who was ever good with language and definitions was George Orwell. Other than that…well, Wheylous is correct, they all like to obfuscate their meaning with ambiguous and undefined (or poorly defined) terms.
Technically they are too good with language and definitions, it’s fashionable to come off as some psuedo-intellectual and at the same time act like you are not, easy to hide the core of an idea, just convey a vague notion of it.
I know I have been guilty of that myself at times, as have other right-libertarians. I try to avoid it now. It’s best left for the left.
And what’s right is best left to the right.