Best person to have an intelligent conversation with.

[*DAMN Silent Killer]

you are intelligant in some things, but not in sports because we all know USLA is better than CU =)

[Bondo]

you are intelligant in some things, but not in sports because we all know USLA is better than CU =)

University of Spanish Language Administrators?  I didn't realize they had a team...or a university for that matter.

[cookie]

  this is turning into a pissing contest about who's what and who's smarter. lets try to keep on track, mmmmmk and goddamnit, before you go off calling yourself intelligent learn how to spell the word.

onward!
i think Mr Lothario provides extremely enriching conversation, you should all talk to him about philosophy and comics   but yeah, i think that it's ironic that the only people i have found intelligent mentioned in this thread are buccaneer and grifter. Buccaneer seems to make logical points (however i'm not sure of his consistency) and grifter, i just admired his obvious skill for debate. I didn't always agree; but hell, he made it all sound good.

and finally...back to my previous statement about not finding the previously mentioned persons intelligent: in most of the cases I think it's due to the fact I either haven't talked much with that person or just haven't seen any demonstrations of brilliance lately. However there are some exceptions to this, because a few that go unnamed have shown me nothing but ignorance up to this point. This makes me wonder, to what standards are we holding these people?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

It's odd, I've been listed as very intellegent by a large number of people here.  Maybe it isn't as cut and dry as you think Bucc.  

How many do you claim is "Large"?  and by kids Bondo.  Many of these kids just don't know how to recognize your bullshit yet is all.  Some do.  But some are still fooled.

Maybe instead you should just shut up about it and accept that I am in fact very intelligent.  I just don't have the same views or methods as you do.  

Nobody has to have the same views as me to be intelligent.  But, you've never really shown intelligence to me Bondo.  So, why should I shut up about it?  

I don't argue in the same way, but unlike you I don't view my style of arguing as the only proper way to do so.

You are right, you don't argue in the same way.  But you claim that your way is logical.  Since I'm using logic, and I've had the training in it, and you aren't using the same method, that would mean that you are not using logic, since you use a different way. (see, that was a logical argument.  It has a name and everything.  Isn't logic wonderful).  

Bondo, since you don't read the actuall facts that DON'T support your issue, since you don't actually acknowledge any facts that completely disagree with your opinion, since you seem unable to learn and apply that knowledge in a reasonable way.  This is why I find you unintelligent.  

To be intelligent, you have to question yourself and your own views too.  Intelligent people never think that they are always right.  They check and recheck all the time.  They don't form opinions without observations, but upon their observations.

[Mattster]

TO GET BACK ON TOPIC: I would say Typhy

[|MP|Cringe]

And the best person to have an intelligent conversation in my opinion is.................
Loth.

(the key word in this thread is INTELLIGENT, not just a good convo)

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I haven't had many conversations with Loth.  But the ones I have, yes, he would qualify.  He's a good, well thought out person it seems.

[Bondo]

First off cookie, spelling has nothing to do with intelligence...secondly, I spelled it right more than half the time .

Bucc, the thing you don't seem to understand is logic IS what I use, but just because you learned a different version (somehow logic having to do directly with fact, which makes no sense to me since if you start turning logic into meaning factual, you lose what logic was meant for in the first place).  The way I learned logic (which is not incorrect) is about the process of statements and is not tied to fact.

But once again in what is it the fifth thread now, I stay on topic only to have Bucc insult me for no reason and make me defend myself.  Bucc, you are losing much credibility.  You can no longer challenge any of my statements and be trusted because you do so just because I made the statements.

[Brain]

bondo. let me make this plan and simple

ALL logical arguments must have something at it's core, right? well, if  remember from my speach class correctly, you can either have a hard fact, or a presumption, which is loosely based on fact...either way facts are an integral part o flogical debate(you can use statics, but those are never reliable and are often very biased)

no logic, no core, no argument
that simple bondo

and as usual, bucc, deadeye, if i used the wrong termonology, feel free to correct me

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I'll work backwards on this one, it will make more sense that way.

The way I learned logic (which is not incorrect) is about the process of statements and is not tied to fact.

Bondo, where, exactly, did you learn logic?  Where and what did you study?  What classes?  What books, by whom?  I really want to learn about this alternative form of logic that they didn't teach me in college.

(somehow logic having to do directly with fact, which makes no sense to me since if you start turning logic into meaning factual, you lose what logic was meant for in the first place).  

And, tell me oh wise one, what exactly was logic meant for in the first place?

Bucc, the thing you don't seem to understand is logic IS what I use, but just because you learned a different version

You got me there.  I do not understand that you use logic.  

Logic is a discipline.  It is a formal way to prove or disprove arguments (be they debates, math problems, scientific theories, whatever).  You start at the premise (what you are trying to prove true of false).  You then have many, many different trees of arguments.  All of which are basically if/then or true/false (I am really breaking this down, these arguments are actually a little more complicated).  Eventually these "facts" bring us to the premise being proven true of false.  You see, logic without facts is like a motor without fuel.  Logic needs facts to prove or disprove the premise, which is it's function.  A motor need fuel to do it's work.    

[tasty]

There goes someone else calling me a conservative.  Just because I don't argue a single side, liberal or conservative, doesn't mean I'm one or the other.

Bucc, I apologize for labelling you as "conservative"? obviously you find political labels offensive, and obviously I don't know all your stances on everything, I only know what I have read in the forums for the past couple months, which is the amount of time that I have been reading/posting here. From what I had seen (anti-gun control, pro-capitalism, pro-war on Iraq, etc.) I drew the conclusion that you generally leaned to the more conservative side of the political spectrum. Although I will take your word for it that you are not "conservative", it is true that you succeeded in providing only one example of an issue where you concur with the liberal side. Your example of gun control actually being conservative doesn't really count, because there you are drawing a line between the political definition of conservative and the dictionary definition of conservative. And your claiming to be liberal is pretty far-fetched, considering the sides that you not only argued, but argued strongly and passionately for in previous discussions.

Also?

I make my mind up based upon the facts, not what's popular, not from emotions.

In case I missed something, this usually is how people make up their minds, liberal or conservative? the difference comes from how they interpret those facts, where they get their facts from, and which facts they choose to believe.

You see, if you had looked up intelligence, like I said, you'd notice it's not having a strong opinion, or having a wealth of knowledge.? It's really the ability to learn.? The ability to aquire and apply knowledge.? Since Bondo wants no part in learning things that disagree with his opinions, I can't consider him intelligent.

As examples, you used people that you thought were intelligent and explained their intelligence as their ability to look at facts and change their minds based on those facts. However, you must take into consideration people such as myself that already have a strong background of evidence to work from in some cases. If we are discussing gun control, foreign policy, capitalism, or other subjects that I have already examined the facts in and made up my mind about, then obviously I am not going to change my mind based on things presented in the DAMN r6 forums. No one is presenting information or arguments on these sorts of political topics that I haven't already seen; the difference between me and assasin or cossack is that my mind is already made up. I already went through the stage of questioning beliefs and sorting fact from fiction. I now have formed strong opinions that I am here in the forums to defend. This is the case with me, and likely the case with Bondo and others that don't agree with you all of the time. I'm not saying Bondo is always right when he posts? many people, including him often let the discussions stray away from topic and more into the emotion realm. I'm not saying that this phenomenon makes for a good argument, but in an informal setting such as internet forums and when discussing with a very diverse group of people in terms of age and expertise, this is bound to happen.

How many do you claim is "Large"?  and by kids Bondo.  Many of these kids just don't know how to recognize your bullshit yet is all.  Some do.  But some are still fooled.

I find this to be pretty insulting, since I supported Bondo on this. I hardly consider myself to be a "kid". I am a college student that is almost 19, and I took college classes in the summers in high school before I enrolled full time this year. I am a political science-anthropology double major. So I think that I have enough credentials not to be referred to as a kid.
Basically this quote boils down to two incorrect generalizations:
1.that everyone that respects Bondo's opinions is a "kid"
2. that everything Bondo says is bullshit, and if you don't recognize it as such, than you are a fool.


Bucc, I just don't think its fair for you to present opinions dissenting yours in this manner. You are an intelligent person. You just seem to have presented this topic in a very two-dimensional way.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

I wouldn't go with Ace or Sin at all. The instant that they disagree with you, or you make a mistake in somthing that you say, they will start to insult you.  

Now now Typhy...the only cases I think I have pointed out your errors was by qupting them and trying to figure out what you said. Much like when you said you were older than everyone in *DAMN. You never qualified that statement and I brought up the point that you were wrong.

As for me breaking out the insults when people disagree with me, that is partially true. I only start calling people ignorant or a dumbfuck (much like I have against Rapid when he accused me of BS) when people want to try and debate with me and they bring assumptions and ideas to the table and not facts. If I am bringing the facts, like I do probably 99% of the time, I don't want it rebuked by some kid (or maybe an adult) who thinks he knows what the hell he is talking about without supporting his stance on the issue at hand.

Bondo: I think SK was referring to UCLA, and if that was the case, we are the number 1 sports school in the nation witht he most NCAA titles won.

Ace: I don't know where to put this, but I have to admit that USC might beat us in football this year because we have lost our top two QB's to injuries (broken ankle and separated shoulder) and our place kicker is just sucking.

Everyone else: Typing errors don't mean anything when it comes to intelligence unless most of your post is a giant typo. I for one like to type fast and sometimes switch letters around and what not, and since there is no spell-check on yabb, I don't pick it up in time. I also don't like to modify posts to correct spelling errors because post modifications to me look like someone kept changing their mind.

[(SiX)Ben]

Well... I guess that means cook divorces me ..

Anyway, I take back my votes to say Bondo and Bucc are two of the intelligent people on gr to have a conversation with mainly because their actions on this thread and the party affiliation thread. Spamming insults at eachother (on defense of offence) is not a sign of intelligence in the least... Intelligence is how to avoid the fight, not how to compete in one. (In my mind)

Frankly, my votes are now Ace, Ejo, and Loth.

I believe anyone can be intelligent in action or word, but most choose to be insane in an effort to get away from their world of rules and standards (No clue where that came from)... We are all smart people, just we show it in different ways.

Ben

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, I apologize for labelling you as "conservative"?

Accepted.

I only know what I have read in the forums for the past couple months, which is the amount of time that I have been reading/posting here. From what I had seen (anti-gun control, pro-capitalism, pro-war on Iraq, etc.) I drew the conclusion that you generally leaned to the more conservative side of the political spectrum. Although I will take your word for it that you are not "conservative", it is true that you succeeded in providing only one example of an issue where you concur with the liberal side. Your example of gun control actually being conservative doesn't really count, because there you are drawing a line between the political definition of conservative and the dictionary definition of conservative. And your claiming to be liberal is pretty far-fetched, considering the sides that you not only argued, but argued strongly and passionately for in previous discussions.

Tasty, I think you have me confused with someone else.  I've never come down on the pro-war with Iraq side either.  I don't know where pro-capitalism came from?  I do know that I get blamed for saying things I haven't, but that's usually by Bondo.  I'm an environmentalist, amongst other things.  I don't like what big business has done to the country.  But I also believe in this country.  I do belive that democracy is the best way to go (people often confuse capitalsim and democracy, so that may be where you got it).  I wish we would move to a true democracy, not a republic, but that's not important in this conversation.  

I also argue that I don't fit under the "conservative" lable of gun control.  I am all for some actual controls.  The problem I have is people want to knee jerk, blame all the problems on guns and get rid of them all.  I'm the one that brought up the electronic safty locks for guns, and I'm all for them.  I want the government to make laws enforcing the gun manufacturers to make all guns that way, just like with seatbelts and cars.  I'm all for making guns SAFER.  But I'm also for what works.  Gun bans don't seem to.  Laws that just effect the non-criminals are usually just stupid.

In case I missed something, this usually is how people make up their minds, liberal or conservative? the difference comes from how they interpret those facts, where they get their facts from, and which facts they choose to believe.

Actually Tasty, if that was the case, we wouldn't have parties, and we wouldn't have the option that is on every ballot, which says "vote party ticket" in which case, you check one box and all your votes go either republican or democrat.  So, I think you missed something.  Also, many people do vote emotionally, and speak emotionally.  Emotional arguments are some of the most dangerous, because they cloud the issue (think mob mentality, that's where I'm going).

However, you must take into consideration people such as myself that already have a strong background of evidence to work from in some cases. If we are discussing gun control, foreign policy, capitalism, or other subjects that I have already examined the facts in and made up my mind about, then obviously I am not going to change my mind based on things presented in the DAMN r6 forums. No one is presenting information or arguments on these sorts of political topics that I haven't already seen;

Ah, now here's where I have to argue with you Tasty.  I bet you didn't catch that part where I wrote that I felt that same way about gun control and bans when I was your age.  And that I learned different.

You have stated the problem pretty clearly right there.  You said that you have seen everything, that I can't show you more.  What makes you think that?  Being many years older then you, I may have learned something that you didn't.  I didn't spend all those years in a cave.  What difference does it make if I present them here, or somewhere else?

It's not that you have to agree with me to be logical, you don't.  I don't know all the answers either.  But that's a big difference in what you just said and the way that Bondo acts.  I know that I don't have all the answers.  You think you do (at least from that last quote).  

If your mind is made up, and you are not even going to look at what the other person is presenting, you are not logical, you are a dumbass.  I say that to anyone.  If you can't consider the other side, you are a zelot, not logical.  There is a difference.  

And that "stage" of questioning should never go away.  It should always be there.

[*DAMN Silent Killer]

another person i forgot is bucc, he is a very thorough speeker and has respect from lots of others.

-SK

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I find this to be pretty insulting, since I supported Bondo on this. I hardly consider myself to be a "kid". I am a college student that is almost 19, and I took college classes in the summers in high school before I enrolled full time this year. I am a political science-anthropology double major. So I think that I have enough credentials not to be referred to as a kid.
Basically this quote boils down to two incorrect generalizations:
1.that everyone that respects Bondo's opinions is a "kid"
2. that everything Bondo says is bullshit, and if you don't recognize it as such, than you are a fool.

1. I did imply that, and it may have been incorrect.  The ones that had commented are.  Oh, and compared to me, you are still a bit of a kid.  That's not meant to be offenseive, just an indication of age difference.

2. I've not said that everything Bondo says is bullshit.  Just that his points on LOGIC are.  Since I have more then one degree, one of which did cover logic, I think I would know.  Bondo hangs on to his arguments that there is more then one type, I've asked where he studied, what he studied, I've asked again.  He has no answer.  You see, that's why I call it bullshit.  If he said he studied such ans such, I'd talk to him about it and where in the hell he got his opinion of what is and isn't logic is.  But he doesn't.  He just says that his way is valid.

If you have read my posts, then you've seen my credentials too Tasty, they've been posted.  You'll know what I'm talking about.  And trust me when I say that being an undergrad, you still have a lot to learn.  That's not a bad thing.  I still have a lot to learn, and I have multiple masters.

Bucc, I just don't think its fair for you to present opinions dissenting yours in this manner. You are an intelligent person. You just seem to have presented this topic in a very two-dimensional way.

Tasty, if you read this, and my posts to Jeb, you'll see that I don't just slam on people that disagree with me.  Bondo, and to a lesser degree Zaitsev, are exceptions.  Because they aren't discussing things, they are on soap boxes.  To discuss them, they have to look at the other side.  Not just look at, but address even.  They both failed to do that.  So, it's not two-dimensional.  It's multi-dimensional, Bondo just happens to be at the end of the spectrum.

[(SiX)Ben]

*Clears throat*

Anonymous:   hmmm so much bs between bucc and tasty
Myself: And Bondo
Anonymous: i just skip their posts
Myself: Yah..

And now I must ask...
Eh?

Ben

[tasty]

Bucc I will agree with the first part of your post where you say that maybe I have confused some of your views??this is possible, I don't know all of your views or they may have been muddled in my mind with all of the different people who posted on gun control/iraq. im only going on what ive observed, or at least what i thought i observed.

Actually Tasty, if that was the case, we wouldn't have parties, and we wouldn't have the option that is on every ballot, which says "vote party ticket" in which case, you check one box and all your votes go either republican or democrat.  So, I think you missed something.  Also, many people do vote emotionally, and speak emotionally.  Emotional arguments are some of the most dangerous, because they cloud the issue (think mob mentality, that's where I'm going).

i never said anything about people voting or behaving emotionally, because obviously people do, maybe even a majority of people. And I don't really believe in political parties either? I definetely don't vote party lines, and the only reason I ever advocate for a party is because unfortunately our democracy is built around them, and to work without them at this point would be impossible. So what I'm getting at is that whether people are actually voting emotionally or not, they still think that they examined facts to come to their conclusion??they were probably just more generalized and emotionally spun facts.

As for your argument after that (which I'm not going to quote for length purposes), I think that you have just misunderstood me. I am not saying that I am unwilling to change my beliefs, or that I have ever stopped looking at further evidence, facts, or opinions. I'm just saying that so far, in the discussions I've had in the forums, no one has brought up any "epiphany-worthy" information. I said that I have positions and that I am willing to argue them. I never said that those positions are completely inflexible or that I am impersuadable. The fact that you assume this from my stating that I have strongly-held opinions makes you just as much of a "dumbass" (as you would say) as I must apparently be.

[*NADS Capt. Anarchy]

[size=10]cookiE![/size]

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Ben, it's not BS between me and Tasty, it's actually a decent conversation.

Tasty,

I can understand getting confused, as long as you either accept that I'm not, or go back and find where I was pro war, etc.

You also mentioned a key statement in your last post.  Your point changed somewhat, and it's important.  You just said So what I'm getting at is that whether people are actually voting emotionally or not, they still think that they examined facts to come to their conclusion? ".  That's the whole difference.  They think they did, doesn't mean that they did.  That was my point.  Too many people accept an emotional argument as a logical one.  That's why they show pictures of things like dead babies on posters against things.  Once it gets that emotional, too many people stop thinking logically.

Last, I may have misunderstood you, but here's the qute why:
Quote from: SEALs tasty on Today at  04:03:26pm  

However, you must take into consideration people such as myself that already have a strong background of evidence to work from in some cases. If we are discussing gun control, foreign policy, capitalism, or other subjects that I have already examined the facts in and made up my mind about, then obviously I am not going to change my mind based on things presented in the DAMN r6 forums. No one is presenting information or arguments on these sorts of political topics that I haven't already seen;

Notice the "I am not going to change my mind based on things presented in the DAMN r6 forums.".  You should now understand why it seemed to me that you would not listen.  I was trying to say that the FORUM that you discuss your beliefs in shouldn't matter.  You should always question them.

So, I would respond that reading that quote, no, I'm not a dumbass, since I didn't assume it from you saying you had strongly-held opinions.  I made that deduction from your words, which pretty much said you wouldn't change your mind.