From: athenonrex (athenonrex@godisdead.com)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 13:26:26 MDT
[joe dees]
I submit this post for inclusion in the CoV Bad Analogy Hall of Fame;
athe nonex obviously cannot successfully debate the issue
straighforwardly, and is thus reduced to profferring off-tangent
metaphorical attempts.
[athenonrex]
you missed the point, yet again. it was an INTENTIONALLY BAD ANALOGY. i find it very hard to think that someone would actually be arguing (seriously arguing, not comedically arguing) the aspects of geographical weather when the subject of ducks' bouyancy was the topic of debate.
similarly, because you reject the simple difference of definition between "job" and "work" (would the terms "employee" and "volunteer" illustrate it better for you?), we are somehow debating the "type" of economy, as opposed to the lack of economy that is possible, given certain trends.
please note i am not predicting the future. nor do i intend to ever, nor do i hope i ever can. rather, i am looking at certain data, interesting trends in technological development, human evolution (social as well as genetic), and a few other factors. however, you failed to note this and have only succeded to "shoot down" a straw man by hyping my argument up to something relatively simplistically explained and overexaggerated to the point of absurdity (hey, nothing wrong with the absurd, though...), but my original argument has remained intact.
it has remained intact because you refuse to argue to discredit it (or at least a practical aspect of it) within the alloted and (taken as) granted premises.
you don't prove that water is wet by lighting a piece of paper on fire, do you? you don't prove that a light bulb works by shutting the power for the entire house off (slightly weaker anology, but i'm working myself up to the stronger ones).you don't prove that WWII happened by starting a WWIII. and lastly, you don't prove that gravity works by floating off into space.
why? (to any of the above.) because the attempts at a counter argument do not operate within the context of the premises of the original arguement.
and who the fuck knows. you may be able to discredit my arguement whist working within the premises. though i typically have decent "vision" and can shift my perspective rather well, it's not something that can be perfected. i know that somewhere in my arguement (within the premises, i mean) there may be flaws. the reason i post it here is for people (not to collaborate and tell me "good job" ... but thanks anyway hermit...) to pick at my arguement and find stuff wrong with it so i can refine it and make it stronger.
but before that happens, if you wish to discredit my arguement, to any degree, you have to attempt a counter arguement within the scope of my premises.
[one again, holding my breathe in hopes i don't pass out waiting...]
-athenonrex
---- This message was posted by athenonrex to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 13:27:01 MDT