Obama needs a history lesson

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

You're still wrong. Hence why it's better if you just shut up. Why? Because I've already answered your recent questions. And you're still wrong. And you're also aware of that fact too. So who's full of shit?

Do yourself a favour. Shut up.

Here's a quote from you that really illustrates the mental block that you seem to have here - "If he's right by saying 'English tradition' rather than 'Scottish Enlightenment',"

How can you not understand that it is not an either/or situation? Why is it beyond your grasp that they could have been influenced by both things? I have absolutely no idea why this concept should be a problem for any functional human being.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

I said this earlier:

'Not relative to post#1. Whilst your statement about a group of people being influenced by others isn't wrong, by saying he was right makes your statement. . . . wrong.'


The way this is going, I reckon all my replies will literally consist of earlier replies. So admit you're wrong and shut up.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

'Not relative to post#1. Whilst your statement about a group of people being influenced by others isn't wrong, by saying he was right makes your statement. . . . wrong.'

One more time, you haven't given any reason why he's wrong. You can't just assert that he's wrong and have it magically be true.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

You can't listen can you? Whilst you're scrabbling amongst the 'scree', try a bit harder. Give me some feedback on why I'm saying you're wrong! Otherwise you're just crabbing about and wasting bandwidth.

You are wrong. Fuckin' deal with it.

Or shut up. It's getting beyond juvenile - so just fuck off. If you'd like to carry on the discussion I'll happily come along to your DZ. Would you like that?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Give me some feedback on why I'm saying you're wrong!

Dude, tht's just it, you haven't said why I'm wrong.

1) The only explanation you give in post 1 is that the Founding Fathers were influenced by the scottish enlightenment. Agreed?

2) People can be influenced by more than one thing. Agreed?

3) Saying that the Founding Fathers were influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they were also influenced by English tradition. Agreed?

4) You have not explained in post 1 why Obama is wrong. Agreed?

It's really simple stuff.

Quote

It's getting beyond juvenile

Hey, you've got the power to change all that - just give a straight answer and leave out the veiled threats, fuck offs and gay insinuations and you'll be on the road back to maturity in no time.

Quote

If you'd like to carry on the discussion I'll happily come along to your DZ. Would you like that? I would.

It's in my profile. Knock yourself out.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Give me some feedback on why I'm saying you're wrong!

Please, enlighten us. Why are you correct? From what I've read, your assertion rests on the premise that the someone/something cannot be shaped/influenced by two different things. If I'm misunderstanding, please explain how. Also, if I am misunderstanding, please explain how Obama was incorrect, since he didn't explicitly or implicitly claim that the Scottish enlightenment was not also influential.

Sorry, I'm just having trouble understanding the logic of your argument. However, I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to clarify.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Dude, tht's just it, you haven't said why I'm wrong.

Yes, I have. Post#4. And you've yet to demonstrate why you're not wrong. But don't worry - we'll discuss this on Saturday, I'll be happy to make myself clear, as you're continually skipping around the issue of where you're not wrong and I am!

Are you mad?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Simple really. See post#1.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Veiled threats? Not at all. We'll chat on Saturday. I'll be delighted if you're still so obstinate and disagreeable. But I don't think you will be.

Will you?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,611]

So we're just quoting post numbers are we. Try post #26.

Quote

Here's a quote from you that really illustrates the mental block that you seem to have here - "If he's right by saying 'English tradition' rather than 'Scottish Enlightenment',"

How can you not understand that it is not an either/or situation? Why is it beyond your grasp that they could have been influenced by both things? I have absolutely no idea why this concept should be a problem for any functional human being.

So again why am I wrong, and why is Obama wrong?

Let me make this crystal clear for you: that he does not mention Scottish influence does not make him wrong. The only thing that would make him wrong is if English tradition had not influenced the founding fathers. The scottish thing has absolutely nothing to do with it. Every time you mention the Scottish thing as a reason for him being wrong about the English thing you only demonstrate your seeming inability to comprehend how multiple influences can act upon a person or group of persons. And that's not good.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Simple really. See post#1.

Sorry mate. If post number 1 is your explanation of your logic, it's not Jakee (or me) who is missing something. The assertion in that post rests on the incorrect assumption that someone/something can be influence by only one thing. That is not true. For example, I was influenced by my grandparents, parents, siblings, some teachers, some friends and some coworkers over the years. Being influenced by one does not preclude being influenced by another. Nothing Obama said precludes the founding fathers being influenced by the Scottish enlightenment, even if he did not explicitly make that claim.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

I'll be delighted if you're still so obstinate and disagreeable. But I don't think you will be.

Will you?

If you keep using broken logic I'm going to keep pointing it out. That's not obstinate or disagreeable, it's just me telling you why your arguments don't do what you think they do. If you never accept criticism you'll never learn.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

The reason I'm continually saying you're wrong is simple:

I said Obama was wrong to say: 'Our founding institutions were profoundly shaped by the English tradition'.

I then said: 'Which isn't quite right. They were profoundly shaped by the Scottish Enlightenment.'

You then said: 'He is right. Because (and here's a radical concept for you) a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing. Crazy!'

Happy so far? Happy that I haven't misquoted you, twisted any words you used or completely made up a statement you didn't in fact use? (Such tactics are pretty low - what kind of person would do such things, eh?)

Back to the point. If he was in actual fact right in what he said as you claim, by using your logic he'd therefore be fucking wrong.

From post#4: (Me)'If he's right by saying 'English tradition' rather than 'Scottish Enlightenment', as you claim, surely your claim is in actual fact wrong:

(you)'Because (and here's a radical concept for you) a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing.'

Therefore he cannot be right as you claim, and that's from using your logic. Now that's what this has been all about. As you well know. So you're still wrong.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Further to that, it's quite obvious and rather cunning how you've tried to distance your replies from this particular area. I don't have any issues with what you're saying in regards to a group of people possibly being influenced by others. As I've already mentioned:

"Not relative to post#1. Whilst your statement about a group of people being influenced by others isn't wrong, by saying he was right makes your statement. . . . wrong."

And not once in your replies did you address this point! Despite recognising the points you're continually repeating, as I've now shown, it seems your tactic has been to further your argument along this pointless line to avoid admitting your original statement was in fact wrong.

I reckon that's a fair and clear enough summary of my reasoning. I look forward to reading your examples of clouding the issue further, whilst continually avoiding the main point. And I expect it'll consist of further questioning of an area where I've earlier provided an adequate answer to.

...an adequate answer to...there you go! You can pick up on this statement, again to avoid the main point.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[mr2mk1g 10]

This thread's chuffing hilarious. I almost spat sandwich on my PC screen.

Vortex... are you a native English speaker or is it your second language? I only ask because the only way I can make sense of your argument is if I credit you with less than full understanding of the meaning of the phrase "profoundly influenced by". (I don’t mean this question in a pejorative way at all by the way – if you fluently speak more than one language, that's more than me!)

Turning to the point in question, (I can't believe I'm joining in this thing); it's perfectly possible for both Scottish enlightenment AND English tradition to "profoundly influence" something. The phrase "profoundly influence" does not, in English, connote any degree of exclusivity whatsoever.

Thus, simply because Scottish enlightenment influenced something, it does not necessarily follow that English tradition couldn't also have influenced that same thing. One does not exclude the possibility of the other.

As a corollary, saying English tradition influenced something which is also influenced by Scottish enlightenment is not, ispo facto, an incorrect statement.

Unless, of course, you want to argue English tradition did not influence US founding institutions, which I must say would be a rather bizarre argument… but at least, perhaps, not quite as bizarre as the one above.

Or is it simply that you're trying to play word games and are actually attempting to submit that English tradition owes its very existence to Scottish enlightenment?

Either way; thank you for the amusing interlude. The rhetoric could scarcely have been better argued if it featured a pair of wet fish and a member of Monty Python.

[vortexring 0]

See post 38 & 39. That's where the main point lies.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The reason I'm continually saying you're wrong is simple:

I said Obama was wrong to say: 'Our founding institutions were profoundly shaped by the English tradition'.

I then said: 'Which isn't quite right. They were profoundly shaped by the Scottish Enlightenment.'

You then said: 'He is right. Because (and here's a radical concept for you) a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing. Crazy!'

Happy so far? Happy that I haven't misquoted you, twisted any words you used or completely made up a statement you didn't in fact use? (Such tactics are pretty low - what kind of person would do such things, eh?)

Back to the point. If he was in actual fact right in what he said as you claim, by using your logic he'd therefore be fucking wrong.

From post#4: (Me)'If he's right by saying 'English tradition' rather than 'Scottish Enlightenment', as you claim, surely your claim is in actual fact wrong:

(you)'Because (and here's a radical concept for you) a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing.'

Therefore he cannot be right as you claim, and that's from using your logic. Now that's what this has been all about. As you well know. So you're still wrong.

Have you ever taken a class in basic logic? Because yours simply isn't valid.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[vortexring 0]

Well, feel free to explain why. My reasoning is that Jakee's original reply is fundamentally flawed, which has always been what this thread is really about.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Well, feel free to explain why.

Mr2mk1g already did so, quite eloquently.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[vortexring 0]

No, Mr2mk1g missed the main point, which is why I pointed out post 38 and 39 to him.

So, seeing as you quoted post 38, please feel free to explain why my logic in regards to Jakee's original statement isn't valid.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

No, Mr2mk1g missed the main point, which is why I pointed out post 38 and 39 to him.

So, seeing as you quoted post 38, please feel free to explain why my logic in regards to Jakee's original statement isn't valid.

Post 38 is just as illogical as post number 1.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[vortexring 0]

Why?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Why?

One reason (quoted from your post):

If he was in actual fact right in what he said as you claim, by using your logic he'd therefore be fucking wrong.

I plain English, that line states: If he was right then he would be wrong.

That's not logical at all.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[vortexring 0]

Sure, and there was a crazy face at the end of the statement, indicating the nonsensical element of it:

'Back to the point. If he was in actual fact right in what he said as you claim, by using your logic he'd therefore be fucking wrong.

And that's what this is about. Jakee's statement:

'He is right. Because (and here's a radical concept for you) a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing. Crazy!'

I find that to be flawed. I replied:

'Crazy is certainly the right word here.
If he's right by saying 'English tradition' rather than 'Scottish Enlightenment', as you claim, surely your claim is in actual fact wrong:

Jakee: 'Because (and here's a radical concept for you) a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing.'

To say he is right, contradicts with his explanation why he is right. If a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing, which of course it can, Jakee must also be wrong by saying 'he is right.'

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And that's what this is about. Jakee's statement:

'He is right. Because (and here's a radical concept for you) a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing. Crazy!'

I find that to be flawed.

It's not logically flawed. Why do you believe it is?

Quote

I replied:

'Crazy is certainly the right word here.
If he's right by saying 'English tradition' rather than 'Scottish Enlightenment', as you claim, surely your claim is in actual fact wrong:

Jakee: 'Because (and here's a radical concept for you) a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing.'

To say he is right, contradicts with his explanation why he is right. If a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing, which of course it can, Jakee must also be wrong by saying 'he is right.'

No, to say he is right does not contradict his explanation of why he is right. Why do you believe it does?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!