Walmart Raided by Dole Customers During "Glitch."

[pErvinalia]

The facts of this issue are simple and clear:

I posited a possible answer to your question.
I gave reasoning for why I think it could be a potential answer to your question.
I never said it was a fact, and I never claimed I had evidence to show it was a fact.
You unequivocally stated that poverty doesn't cause crime.
I asked you for evidence of this claim.
The thread went down the toilet because you refused to provide evidence for this claim.
And what's even more farcical is that now you are claiming that you didn't make a positive assertion. Yet you have repeatedly said that you will provide the evidence for this apparent non-claim after I jump through the right amount of hoops in the right way for you.

These are unequivocal facts of this thread. They can all be verified (and indeed have been by me MULTIPLE times). There's simply no need for reams of back and forth. You either provide evidence for your claim, or you don't and we let the thread move on. I don't give a fuck if you don't provide evidence. But if you don't, then we are free to dismiss your claim as opinion only.

[pErvinalia]

I know no one is reading the back and forth between us, and rightly so. So to hopefully put a stop to CES's nonsense, can I ask if anyone else reading this thread thought I made a positive assertion back on page one when I posited poverty as a reason for why people might want to steal shit from Walmart?

Does anyone, after reading the following clarifying statement I made way back on page one think I was making a positive assertion:

And I didn't make an "assertion". I posed it as a question - i.e. a possibility. .... My reasoning for positing such a thing would be that they are likely to be far more in need of things than a person with more money.

Maybe if enough clear heads point this out to Coito, he can accept his mistake and move on.

[Clinton Huxley]

M'Lud, I put it to the Court of Rationalia that, on the 15th October, with malice of forethought, CES/rEV (delete as applicable) did etc etc etc....

[pErvinalia]

The problem is CES keeps doing this shit in so many serious threads. He says something, and then spends pages and pages trying to deny it, and often tries to turn it back on the person he is "debating" with. No wonder there is no serious discussion on this forum. Perhaps if everyone pointed out to him that he is indeed often wrong, despite his protestations to the opposite, he might perchance actually take it on board. Because he's certainly not listening to me.

[PsychoSerenity]

All I can say is, I admire you energy, rEv. - Six rounds with CES for a single point. But nobody's knocked him out yet, and most people end up banging their own heads against the wall trying.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I don't know why I bother. I just end up getting narky and suspended. I just can't stand his righteousness, particularly when it is so bloody misguided. And his dishonesty is reprehensible as well. If people really do lament that there is little serious discussion here on this forum (perhaps they don't), then there's one very obvious reason why people don't engage in serious threads. They will be Coito'd or Sethed (and now Collectored).

[Coito ergo sum]

What the titty christ is wrong with you?!?

Nothing. But, I would appreciate it if you would stop your personal attacks.

You made a POSITIVE ASSERTION. It doesn't matter what it was in response to. IT WAS A POSITIVE ASSERTION.

Yes, it does matter what it was in response to, because your assertion came first. So, all I'm asking is that you (a) present evidence for your assertion, which you haven't done, or (b) say you have no evidence for your assertion, which you appear to be trying desperately to avoid doing.

You attempted to defend your assertion by presenting a "reason" why it might be true. Now, however, you are trying to deny that you ever made an assertion. I am o.k. with that, but if you never made the assertion I responded to by denying (and asserting that what you said was not true or supported by the evidence), then my negation of your assertion need not be defended. In other words, I'm not letting you bait-and-switch.

And I never tried to "defend" anything. I simply gave you my reasoning for my speculation.

Exactly, you gave your reasoning. However you were asking me for evidence of my contrary position. I will give you evidence, but only when you give your evidence for that which you provided a reasoning. If you will not do that, 0r, if you will not state that you have no evidence for it, then I will not provide you with evidence.

Why is it you can't understand this?

I understand it quite well.

It's either gross dishonesty, or something else. Here's MY FIRST response to you after you asked me for evidence, way back on page 1:

"And I didn't make an "assertion". I posed it as a question - i.e. a possibility. Once again, you can't seem to parse English properly. My reasoning for positing such a thing would be that they are likely to be far more in need of things than a person with more money. But you have made an assertion to the contrary. Therefore, you must have some evidence to back this up?"[/aquote]

There you see it. you asked me for evidence for a proposition which was the opposite of what you asserted. I am happy to provide it, but only after you provide evidence. You provided reasoning for something. However, reasoning is not evidence, and you asked me for evidence. If you want evidence from me, you'll give evidence.

It's unnecessary for you to cast aspersions, and I politely ask you to stop.

And here we are 5 or so pages later and you still deny that I have answered your idiotic claims,

You haven't. You tried to defend a claim by providing reasoning. However, what you asked me for was "evidence" of the opposite position (which I took). But, you refuse to give evidence of the claim you offered reasoning for.

and you continue to make the same idiotic claims. I have simply never claimed what I said was an assertion, and I have never claimed that I have evidence for it.

I know you have never claimed to have evidence for it. I just want you to be very clear here. I want you to state unequivocally, in your own words, that you do not have evidence for what you attempted to defend by offering your "Reasons." It's very simple. If you will say that you have no evidence for it, then that would be that.

I have repeatedly said to you that it is not an assertion and that I don't know whether poor people commit more crime or not.

Look, all I did was assert the opposite of what you were saying. If you don't have evidence for your speculation about the poor being more prone to crime, then I need not offer evidence for the opposite proposition, that being poor does not make one prone to crime. It's really as simple as that. If you're not suggesting that what you said was correct, then we are in agreement. I agree. There isn't any evidence for that. I'm not going to offer evidence for something we agree on.

Yet you continue to refuse to accept this. How can you seriously defend the charge that you are a dishonest debater of the highest order?

If I am charged with that allegation, then I do not seek to defend that charge. I would seek to defend against such charge, if I needed to. But, I don't, because you are without any authority to make such a charge, and coming from you the charge itself rings exceedingly hollow. I don't see a need to defend any charge from you, because I do not care what you think of me.

You are simply lying your ass off in this thread.

Not once have I lied.

You are totally incapable of owning your own words and countenancing the possibility that you got something wrong.

False, and you know that. I did state specifically, yesterday, that I was wrong when I thought you were referring to satellite t.v., when in fact you were referring to satellite internet. Remember that? So, you, again, are wrong. I have countenanced the possibility that I got something wrong. You must remember that from yesterday? Why do you keep claiming that I "never" admit I'm wrong, when I did so yesterday, and you even acknowledged yesterday that I had done so? What would you call someone who is telling an untruth today about something that occurred yesterday?

This happens in thread after thread after infuriating thread with you. When the fuck are you going to grow up and learn?

More personal attacks and/or non-nice playing. I don't think this merits any sort of serious response, as it is not a serious inquiry. It's more of a rave.

However, I gave you the preconditions. I want your evidence first, or I want you to be unequivocal that you don't have any evidence.

I don't have any evidence

Good! Now we are getting somewhere. So, just confirm for me now. You do not have any evidence for the proposition that poor people would be more prone to commit crimes, right?

as I didn't make an assertion requiring evidence. How fucking hard is this for you to understand?

Oh, here's the weaseling. You claim you didn't make an assertion. Yet, you defended that assertion by presenting what you claim to be "reasoning" for it.

Do you, or do you not, have "evidence" to back up that which you tried to defend with your alleged "reasoning?" it's a very simple question here -- you can just answer "no" if indeed you have no such evidence.

My comments were in response to your assertion, as I read it, that you thought the poor were more apt to commit crimes. I said they weren't. That's what this whole exchange is.

1. If you are withdrawing the assertion, then we agree and we're done.

No we're not. YOU MADE A BASELESS ASSERTION. Where's your evidence for this assertion?

My assertion was merely that your assertion was wrong. It's like you said there was a god, and I said no there wasn't a god, and then you asked me to present my evidence for there being no god first, before you'll present evidence of their being a god. And, what's more, it's like you now want to withdraw that you ever even asserted there was a god, and leave my contrary assertion in isolation.

Just answer this honestly. Do you think that poverty causes crime? Do you think that the poor are more prone to commit crimes than the population at large?

2. If you don't believe that poor people are more apt to commit crimes, then we agree and we're done.

For the five thousandth time, I don't know whether the poor are more apt to commit crimes. I can think of reasons why they might be, but I don't know if this reflects reality. How hard is this for you to understand? Should I write it in crayon and draw pictures for you?

Oh, o.k., neither do I. I don't think there is any evidence for the assertion that poor people are more apt to commit crimes, though. Do you know of any?

Sure, there are lots of reasons why lots of things "might be."

This isn't hard at all for me to understand. If you think that writing in crayon and drawing pictures would help you get your point across, then by all means do so. Anything that facilitates the polite exchange of ideas is fine with me.

3. If you DO, in fact, adhere to the position you tried to defend by giving your "Reasons" (remember those posts, where you actually gave your reason to support the position you now try to claim you never took?) -- then give me your evidence, or if you don't have any, then just say so.

:headbang: How many fucking times am I going to have to address this nonsense?!??

You haven't done so clearly. Saying "I never made assertion X" is not the same thing -- at all -- as saying "I don't adhere or advance assertion X." See what I mean? I'm trying to get at whether we have a disagreement. If you're not taking the position that the poor commit more crimes or that poverty causes crime or some such iteration of that argument, then I am quite simply not going to shadow box and argue with you about a position on which you have no view or take no position. Savvy?

I've been very clear here, and you are trying as hard as you can to yell at the top of your lungs, metaphorically speaking, to pretend that somehow I'm doing something wrong to you, or lying to you. I quite simply have not. You're trying hard to reverse this exchange. You made the apparent statement that they did this because they were poor. I denied that and asked for your evidence. You want to skip the part where you give your evidence (or admit you don't have any), and you want to go right on to the part where my assertion that your assertion was wrong needs to be positively proven first. No no. I've enough experience with you to know that once I provide my evidence, you will move on and you will not in any way either present evidence or admit you don't have any. So, I'm not going to expand more on it until you do. Capice? Savvy?

You seriously need to get an education. You apparently have no concept of what a positive claim is. You made one. No amount of Coito filibustering can change that fact.

I don't deny that I made one, and I have not denied I made one. I have told you many times now that I quite simply am not going to give you the courtesy of answering your call for me to defend my claim with "evidence" until you do so for the opposite claim, which you did espouse and sought to offer "reasons" for. That's it. I'm not denying I made a positive claim.

I would appreciate it if you would stop it with the personal attacks, as well. Thank you very much.

When you stop being a dishonest debater of the highest order, and offensive to boot, then I will stop personally attacking you.

Well, here is an admission that you were engaging in personal attacks.

Moreover, being a "dishonest debater," even if I were one, is not against the rules. It's not even "not playing nice."

You claim that I am offensive? Point to an offensive post. Please. I mean, you can be offended by whatever you like, I guess. You get offended very easily, but luckily whether you are "offended" or not really doesn't mean very much. In the words of the great Stephen Fry, “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” -

Enjoy your day.

[pErvinalia]

Please refer to my two posts at the top of this page. Until you accept those points, there's nothing more I need to add.

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem is CES keeps doing this shit in so many serious threads. He says something, and then spends pages and pages trying to deny it, and often tries to turn it back on the person he is "debating" with. No wonder there is no serious discussion on this forum. Perhaps if everyone pointed out to him that he is indeed often wrong, despite his protestations to the opposite, he might perchance actually take it on board. Because he's certainly not listening to me.

This is really getting ridiculous. What is it that you feel I have denied unjustifiably? That I made a positive assertion? I did make a positive assertion, but it was in response to the position you took. I took the opposite position. So, rather than let you demand evidence from me first, I wanted your evidence first. Since you apparently withdraw your assertion or deny ever having made any such assertion, then we don't have an argument. I'm not going to argue if we don't have a dispute.

[pErvinalia]

I've been very clear here, and you are trying as hard as you can to yell at the top of your lungs, metaphorically speaking, to pretend that somehow I'm doing something wrong to you, or lying to you. I quite simply have not. You're trying hard to reverse this exchange. You made the apparent statement that they did this because they were poor. I denied that and asked for your evidence. You want to skip the part where you give your evidence (or admit you don't have any), and you want to go right on to the part where my assertion that your assertion was wrong needs to be positively proven first. No no. I've enough experience with you to know that once I provide my evidence, you will move on and you will not in any way either present evidence or admit you don't have any. So, I'm not going to expand more on it until you do. Capice? Savvy?

You seriously need to get an education. You apparently have no concept of what a positive claim is. You made one. No amount of Coito filibustering can change that fact.

I don't deny that I made one, and I have not denied I made one.

^ This is why you are a liar, Coito, and why no one can expect a meaningful and honest debate from you. You did indeed deny it on the last page when you said: "I made no factual assertion...". - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1511908

Stop lying, or go away.

[Coito ergo sum]

The facts of this issue are simple and clear:

I posited a possible answer to your question.

Admitted. So, you did make an assertion. Suggesting or positing a possible answer is offering an assertion.

I gave reasoning for why I think it could be a potential answer to your question.

Admitted. However, you also asked me for "evidence." And, since my position was to take the position opposite your "possible answer to the question" I asked if you had any evidence for your possible answer. You then refused to give evidence and to say that "I never claimed to have evidence" for it. That's fine, but if you're not going to offer evidence or if you don't have evidence for the possible answer, then I am not going to offer evidence for my assertion of the opposite. Got it?

I never said it was a fact, and I never claimed I had evidence to show it was a fact.

I never said mine was a fact either. All I wanted to clarify was that you had no evidence for the possible answer you asserted. If you do not, then we don't have an argument and I do not feel any need to back up my assertion of the exact opposite.

Remember, too, that you not only suggested that "being poor" was the answer to my question, you also posted insulting comments about how I must be adhering to the conservative line of suggesting it was "character" or that the "poor and disadvantaged" were deserving of scorn or insult, etc. You didn't JUST offer your "possible answer." You offered your possible answer coupled with insult and invective.

You unequivocally stated that poverty doesn't cause crime.

Admitted in part and denied in part. I believe I said there was no evidence that poverty caused crime. When I say something like "poverty does not cause crime," my intent is that there is no evidence that poverty causes crime. It's like saying "there is no god." Can I prove unequivocally and conclusively that there is no god, no, of course not. But, if there is no evidence for the assertion, then I don't accept the assertion.

I asked you for evidence of this claim.

Yes, admitted. And, I asked you for evidence of your possible answer. If you have no evidence for your possible answer, then the debate is over. I need not accept the possible answer that poverty causes crime or that "because their poor" is answer to my question, if you have no evidence for it. My responses to you that poverty does not cause crime is the opposite of what you claimed. If there is no evidence for what you claimed, then I need not advance contrary evidence to support the opposite claim.

The thread went down the toilet because you refused to provide evidence for this claim.

Denied. This thread went down the toilet because you immediately took it personal, and you immediately made insults and invective the order of the day. It also took two days worth of posts to get you to admit that you don't have any evidence for the possible answer you gave. That's what sent the thread down the toilet.

And what's even more farcical is that now you are claiming that you didn't make a positive assertion.

Denied. My assertion can be characterized as a positive assertion, but it is really a positive assertion of a negative proposition -- i.e. my response was that the positive assertion that "becuase they're poor" is an answer to my question is baseless. Poverty does not cause crime is how I phrased it, yes. And, the fact that you have no evidence that it does (i.e. no evidence for your possible answer) is support for the proposition that poverty does not cause crime.

i Yet you have repeatedly said that you will provide the evidence for this apparent non-claim after I jump through the right amount of hoops in the right way for you.

Oh, no, that is denied. What I said was that I will provide the courtesy of responding to your request for evidence when you do so.

These are unequivocal facts of this thread. They can all be verified (and indeed have been by me MULTIPLE times). There's simply no need for reams of back and forth. You either provide evidence for your claim, or you don't and we let the thread move on. I don't give a fuck if you don't provide evidence. But if you don't, then we are free to dismiss your claim as opinion only.

My responses are noted above. They can be verified.

And, I have already dismissed your claim as opinion only. I knew you were just making stuff up as your "possible answer." Yet, even though you have no evidence for your proposition, you had no problem mouthing off about people who took the opposing position. Think about that. You were outraged by what you thought the allegation "poverty does not cause crime" meant - you went on about what those you dubbed "conservatives" must believe about the poor and disadvantaged if they offered such a proposition. Remember that? So now we know very clearly -- you can take a position or offer a possible answer without a shred of evidence, and then if someone say "no, that's not the case" you fly off the handle into invective and attack their character and you righteously demand evidence from THEM when you had no evidence for the claim you advanced and they essentially merely denied.

[Coito ergo sum]

I know no one is reading the back and forth between us, and rightly so. So to hopefully put a stop to CES's nonsense, can I ask if anyone else reading this thread thought I made a positive assertion back on page one when I posited poverty as a reason for why people might want to steal shit from Walmart?

Does anyone, after reading the following clarifying statement I made way back on page one think I was making a positive assertion:

And I didn't make an "assertion". I posed it as a question - i.e. a possibility. .... My reasoning for positing such a thing would be that they are likely to be far more in need of things than a person with more money.

Maybe if enough clear heads point this out to Coito, he can accept his mistake and move on.

That's not the only thing you wrote on the topic.

Moreover, what does any of that have to do with you going on and on and insulting and attacking and being just overall unpleasant and aggressive?

You know rev, it's very easy -- you can just say -- "Coito, I don't think you understood me. To be clear, no I don't assert that poverty is a cause of crime or that the people in the OP did this because they're poor." You could have said words to that effect, and then we'd be in 100% agreement. Instead you went on the attack against me.

[Coito ergo sum]

No pressure but the person who has the last word is the winner.....

We actually haven't gotten started.

We're still at the level the stage of Rev backing up his argument with evidence. It's now even more difficult, because he tried to support his assertion with what he claimed to be "reason," but now he denies ever making the assertion he tried to defend.

For the love of god, avail yourself of an education, or at least a dictionary. I DID NOT make an assertion. What the fuck is wrong with you? Stop being so fucking dishonest.

Huh, you just said you offered a possible answer. That's an assertion. You even tried to justify it with a "reason," and you've admitted that as well.

You asked me for evidence of my assertion of the opposite of yours. All I asked was for you to provide the evidence for yours first. If you have none, and it appears you have none, then my assertion of the opposite of yours does not require any defending. We're in agreement that there is no evidence that poverty causes crime or "the poor" is a possible answer to my question. Savvy?

[pErvinalia]

I attack you because you are a serial liar (amongst other things, IMO).

I made no assertion. You do not understand what the word "assertion" means. Until you understand what it means, we can't have any more meaningful conversation on this issue.

You unequivocally stated that poverty doesn't cause crime. Do you have evidence for this claim. Yes or no? Are you willing to provide it? Yes or No? If the answer to either or both of these questions is "no" there is no need to elaborate. We've had 5 pages of your bullshit already. I don't give a fuck if you have evidence or not, or whether you are willing to provide it or not. All I care about is being able to confidently call what you said "opinion" without having to be filibustered for 5 fucking pages of bullshit.

[pErvinalia]

i Yet you have repeatedly said that you will provide the evidence for this apparent non-claim after I jump through the right amount of hoops in the right way for you.

Oh, no, that is denied. What I said was that I will provide the courtesy of responding to your request for evidence when you do so.

MORE lies. You are a serial liar.

Here's what you said earlier. And this is just from the second page. You've been saying the same thing for the whole thread.:

Really. Got any evidence to back that up?

I'll be happy to, but you made the assertion about "poor" people committing crimes first.

You want evidence, then give me your evidence (if any) first,..

You are either willing or not to back it up. Make a choice.

I told you I was more than willing. You, however, asked me for evidence. I then told you I would answer your inquiry in that regard AFTER you provided me with evidence for your proposition. You declined to do so, so far only giving me some "rationale" or "reason" that you thought up. Then you proceed to ask me not for my "reason" for thinking that poverty does not cause crime -- you ask me for "evidence." If you want evidence from me, then you need to give evidence for your proposition first, or at least say "I don't have any evidence." Once you do that, I will be happy to respond in kind.