That Damn Bigfoot Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2014, 11:52 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 11:39 AM)Free Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:31 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Had you not been posting that you believed aliens were likely visiting Earth? Did you or did you not say that you were 70% convinced that this incident was an alien craft? That is a claim that it was very probably an alien craft. If you want to mince words, I didn't say that you claimed it was conclusive, but I was trying to treat your claims as they would be reasonably understood by anybody reading all that you had posted. Picking out specific sentences and saying "I didn't make a positive claim here" is a shyster trick.


Give me a fucking break. You claimed that these were experienced witnesses and that you accepted their testimony. In your own words:


You aren't just saying that THEY made a claim, you are saying that you accept that claim. In conjunction with all the other things you've posted it was quite clear that you accepted 'alien craft' as the most probable answer. That's you making a claim. That's what I was responding to.

You're obviously not at all stupid but from my perspective you have a huge blind spot and an emotional attachment to the idea of aliens being here. The evidence FOR that just isn't there, at least not that I've seen.

Hey! Nice attempt at avoiding the fact that you misrepresented my position, dispshit.

The fact of the fucking matter is YOU DID MISREPRESENT MY POSITION.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not I thought it was possible that they seen an "aircraft," as you completely LIED about my position in that saying that I was positively claiming that the aircraft was an alien craft.

You lying and intellectually dishonest sack of shit.

Drinking Beverage

Protip: claiming there's some large "probability" (70% lol) of some claim being true is making a positive claim.

You don't get to dance away from absurd positions just because you add a "well, but I'm not totally 100% sure, guys!" to the end.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
09-12-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 11:39 AM)Free Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:31 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Had you not been posting that you believed aliens were likely visiting Earth? Did you or did you not say that you were 70% convinced that this incident was an alien craft? That is a claim that it was very probably an alien craft. If you want to mince words, I didn't say that you claimed it was conclusive, but I was trying to treat your claims as they would be reasonably understood by anybody reading all that you had posted. Picking out specific sentences and saying "I didn't make a positive claim here" is a shyster trick.


Give me a fucking break. You claimed that these were experienced witnesses and that you accepted their testimony. In your own words:


You aren't just saying that THEY made a claim, you are saying that you accept that claim. In conjunction with all the other things you've posted it was quite clear that you accepted 'alien craft' as the most probable answer. That's you making a claim. That's what I was responding to.

You're obviously not at all stupid but from my perspective you have a huge blind spot and an emotional attachment to the idea of aliens being here. The evidence FOR that just isn't there, at least not that I've seen.

Hey! Nice attempt at avoiding the fact that you misrepresented my position, dispshit.

The fact of the fucking matter is YOU DID MISREPRESENT MY POSITION.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not I thought it was possible that they seen an "aircraft," as you completely LIED about my position in that saying that I was positively claiming that the aircraft was an alien craft.

You lying and intellectually dishonest sack of shit.

Drinking Beverage

Rolleyes

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 11:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:39 AM)Free Wrote:  Hey! Nice attempt at avoiding the fact that you misrepresented my position, dispshit.

The fact of the fucking matter is YOU DID MISREPRESENT MY POSITION.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not I thought it was possible that they seen an "aircraft," as you completely LIED about my position in that saying that I was positively claiming that the aircraft was an alien craft.

You lying and intellectually dishonest sack of shit.

Drinking Beverage

Protip: claiming there's some large "probability" (70% lol) of some claim being true is making a positive claim.

You don't get to dance away from absurd positions just because you add a "well, but I'm not totally 100% sure, guys!" to the end.

A point many of us have been trying to make for days now. Lets see if it sinks in this time! Popcorn

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2014 12:12 PM by Free.)
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 11:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:39 AM)Free Wrote:  Hey! Nice attempt at avoiding the fact that you misrepresented my position, dispshit.

The fact of the fucking matter is YOU DID MISREPRESENT MY POSITION.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not I thought it was possible that they seen an "aircraft," as you completely LIED about my position in that saying that I was positively claiming that the aircraft was an alien craft.

You lying and intellectually dishonest sack of shit.

Drinking Beverage


Protip: claiming there's some large "probability" (70% lol) of some claim being true is making a positive claim.

You don't get to dance away from absurd positions just because you add a "well, but I'm not totally 100% sure, guys!" to the end.

Completely incorrect, and I am surprised at you.

70% is a reasonable hypothesis which leaves plenty of room for doubt, which means it is falsifiable. It may just be my opinion, but nonetheless, it is how skepticism works.

Any percentage of anything does not demonstrate conclusiveness in any way.

100% certainty demonstrates conclusiveness and a positive claim, and I said no such thing.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:00 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 11:57 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Protip: claiming there's some large "probability" (70% lol) of some claim being true is making a positive claim.

You don't get to dance away from absurd positions just because you add a "well, but I'm not totally 100% sure, guys!" to the end.

A point many of us have been trying to make for days now. Lets see if it sinks in this time! Popcorn

Care to even make a vain attempt to defend yourself here, or do you wish to concede now and save yourself further embarassment because ... what I have coming next is not going to be too damn good for you dude.

Not at all.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:17 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 12:00 PM)Free Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:57 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  A point many of us have been trying to make for days now. Lets see if it sinks in this time! Popcorn

Care to even make a vain attempt to defend yourself here, or do you wish to concede now and save yourself further embarassment because ... what I have coming next is not going to be too damn good for you dude.

Not at all.

Drinking Beverage

Oh I'm sorry you have me confused for someone who stomps outta threads in a hissy fit down, down repping multiple people with childish little barbs on the way out, declaring the conversation done only to start a new thread where they continue to dishonestly try and prove their original whack-a-do claims. Caught your reflection in your monitor again did ya? Drinking Beverage

You know if you have time to go back through all my posts why not ...Oh I dunno...address the issues I raised?

Hey in the next thing you type if you are gonna try and accuse everyone else of misrepresenting your view maybe don't edit out all of the strawmen you get called on? Oh noes! The guy with the tin foil hat on too tight thinks I'm embarrassing myself and no one else does! How ever will I survive?Rolleyes

By the way someone does not need to express 100% certainty in a thing for their belief in it to be a positive claim.

(09-12-2014 12:00 PM)Free Wrote:  what I have coming next is not going to be too damn good for you dude.
I like how you think your argument is a winner before you even make it. I wonder if anyone will agree with it at all. What do you think Free? Or will the shadowy cabal join forces to support me?
[Image: Cuckoo.gif~original]

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
09-12-2014, 12:21 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 12:17 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:00 PM)Free Wrote:  Care to even make a vain attempt to defend yourself here, or do you wish to concede now and save yourself further embarassment because ... what I have coming next is not going to be too damn good for you dude.

Not at all.

Drinking Beverage

Oh I'm sorry you have me confused for someone who stomps outta threads in a hissy fit down, down repping multiple people with childish little barbs on the way out, declaring the conversation done only to start a new thread where they continue to dishonestly try and prove their original whack-a-do claims. Caught your reflection in your monitor again did ya? Drinking Beverage

You know if you have time to go back through all my posts why not ...Oh I dunno...address the issues I raised?

Hey in the next thing you type if you are gonna try and accuse everyone else of misrepresenting your view maybe don't edit out all of the strawmen you get called on? Oh noes! The guy with the tin foil hat on too tight thinks I'm embarrassing myself and no one else does! How ever will I survive?Rolleyes

By the way someone does not need to express 100% certainty in a thing for their belief in it to be a positive claim.

(09-12-2014 12:00 PM)Free Wrote:  what I have coming next is not going to be too damn good for you dude.
I like how you think your argument is a winner before you even make it. I wonder if anyone will agree with it at all. What do you think Free? Or will the shadowy cabal join forces to support me?
[Image: Cuckoo.gif~original]

Yep, as expected, even more demonstration of your lack of maturity and ability to even adequately defend yourself.

Your position is indefensible. You've been exposed for intellectual dishonesty, trapped by your own words.

What is even more disappointing is that you appear to lack the integrity to admit your mistakes, as it seems far more important to you that you continue to recieve a few likes and the odd rep point here and there.

Good luck with your ... popularity contest.

I have added another "like" to your previous post.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 11:39 AM)Free Wrote:  Hey! Nice attempt at avoiding the fact that you misrepresented my position, dispshit.

The fact of the fucking matter is YOU DID MISREPRESENT MY POSITION.

I do not think I misrepresented your claim at all, at least not as most people would see it. I did not always say "you claim 70% conviction" instead of "you claim" because I honestly do not see a significant distinction there, especially given the overall content and tone of the entire set of posts. Given the evidence presented, 70% convinced is easily more than 60% over-justified, probably more than 69% over-justified.

Free, I am not attacking you. I think you're probably pretty intelligent. I just disagree with your conclusions. As I said before, you seem to me to have a huge emotional investment in this and I think it is preventing you from evaluating the evidence objectively.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
09-12-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 11:58 AM)Free Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Protip: claiming there's some large "probability" (70% lol) of some claim being true is making a positive claim.

You don't get to dance away from absurd positions just because you add a "well, but I'm not totally 100% sure, guys!" to the end.

Completely incorrect, and I am surprised at you.

70% is a reasonable hypothesis which leaves plenty of room for doubt, which means it is falsifiable. It may just be my opinion, but nonetheless, it is how skepticism works.

Any percentage of anything does not demonstrate conclusiveness in any way.

100% certainty demonstrates conclusiveness and a positive claim, and I said no such thing.

Nice try, but no.

You seem to be under the stunning misapprehension that only absolute certainty constitutes a positive claim. This is absurd. I dare say that you are the only person I have ever spoken to who has managed to come to such a misunderstanding. This is not how anyone in any logic book or course anywhere has ever defined things.

To claim something is possible is a positive claim. To claim something is likely is a positive claim. Period. Deal with it. The claim is regarding the possibility itself, and it is most assuredly a clear and definite assertion. A repeated claim of (say) 70% probability is a positive claim. It is not a claim of certain knowledge insofar as it is not a claim of absolute truth. This is indeed so. It is a claim of knowledge as to what the probabilities themselves are. It is puzzling that you do not appear to appreciate the distinction.

Or: "NO U HAV TO PROOF IT WRONG LOL" is not an argument. Come the fuck on.

Incidentally, it is simply not possible to conclusively demonstrate what a few credulous people might or might not have seen over Chicago. That evidence does not exist, nor will it ever. The specific claim is unfalsifiable, and you know it.
(that your best defense against witness fallibility - when presented with eyewitness testimony of far more incredible events and maintained by far more people, and when presented with extensive investigation into the manifest flaws of human memory - is to just plain ol' assert, "but, these guys weren't wrong, because reasons!" is just so much asinine special pleading)

The intellectually honest thing to do, absent reliable evidence and coherent theories, is to not even assign probabilities.

To insist that "possibilities" (with no substantiation beyond hopes and feels?) must then be entertained - because they cannot be "conclusively" dismissed! - is the exact opposite of skepticism.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
09-12-2014, 12:41 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(09-12-2014 12:29 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:39 AM)Free Wrote:  Hey! Nice attempt at avoiding the fact that you misrepresented my position, dispshit.

The fact of the fucking matter is YOU DID MISREPRESENT MY POSITION.

I do not think I misrepresented your claim at all, at least not as most people would see it. I did not always say "you claim 70% conviction" instead of "you claim" because I honestly do not see a significant distinction there, especially given the overall content and tone of the entire set of posts. Given the evidence presented, 70% convinced is easily more than 60% over-justified, probably more than 69% over-justified.

Free, I am not attacking you. I think you're probably pretty intelligent. I just disagree with your conclusions. As I said before, you seem to me to have a huge emotional investment in this and I think it is preventing you from evaluating the evidence objectively.

What you do not think, and what actually transpired, are two different things. part of the problem is that it had a snowball affect, which made me quite aware of who else was doing it, and who was doing it intentionally.

Now I am willing to accept that it was not your intention to misrepresent my position. I also apologize that I sort of made you out to be a scapegoat by picking on a singular instance, which by the way, was the first example I could find in the UFO thread.

I singled you out to strengthen my position against Whiskey, as there was some evidence there to support my claim.

For that, I humbly apologize.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: