!
Unsurprisingly, you're making things up in the absence of a cogent argument (precisely [b]because we are technically on the same side). For your accusations of a strawman to be accurate, I would have to have accused you of intentionally claiming I supported DADT.[/b]
!
Considering the fact that time and time again I've explained that I did not support DADT at any time, your argument is becoming less of a cogent argument and more of an emotional tirade.
I expect that this will not come up again.
B:
!
I'm pulling as much weight as you except you're treating this as if we're on opposite sides of the net
C:
!
Also, claiming there's no difference between religious faith and sexual orientation is a great way to shut down arguments.
!
The only thing I've done was claim that you've given off that impression, which you have
!
This is another conversation that I will have to seriously think about, but I have a thought at the top of my head. If the military's primary goal is to ensure the utmost efficiency of their troops, and as these studies have allegedly shown that homosexuals don't impede performance or efficiency, then it is not in the best interest of the military to be prejudicial against homosexuals, wouldn't you agree?
This "allegedly" business, however, is silly. I directed you to the precise pages in the linked studies where the conclusions are stated unambiguously, and having done so I didn't feel the need to quote them myself.
!
If so, your prejudice argument is out.
!
I advise you to look up the word apathy and apply it properly next time
This is the definition of apathy.
!
Furthermore, you have presented no real, specific outlined findings on these studies other than "look here"
!
Double standards much? I will be more than happy to spend a few hours glancing over those studies if you are willing to do the same, and then we can continue this discussion.
!
No, it comes out to politics with prejudice being a sufficient, but not NECESSARY condition. I'm not saying prejudice didn't play a certain role in the creation and continued maintenance of DADT but you're claiming it was solely prejudice
Me
The issue of efficacy is largely a farce, introduced to buttress policy with something other than stigma.
!
because you're somehow ruling out one other aspect.
Me
Given this information and extending you a very generous benefit of doubt, the only logical procession is to conclude that you do, in fact, believe that there was a reasonable basis for the implementation of the policy, one that had nothing to do with the particular feelings towards homosexuals of those responsible for and supportive of the legislation: a suspicion that inclusion of homosexuals in the military would have an adverse effect on its efficacy. I have provided you with a great deal of data, itself but a modicum of what is available to anyone willing to look, concluding that this is not the case, and if we employ logic and search engines we find that no similarly exhaustive research was done before the implementation of the policy. If such research had been conducted the results would have been the same, and it would have been made incontrovertibly clear that the aforementioned suspicion is unfounded. Thus, the original concern is moot, and had some effort been dedicated to any diligent scrutiny of the assertion the only thing resembling a real reason to implement the policy would have been rendered baseless. That no evidence of remotely comparable scope or merit contradicted these findings means that the mandate to impose these rules on a select population was carried out without sufficient foundation in reason.
Also:
!
[quote]I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "double standards".
I believe you and I have different definitions of "civil".
I'm not sure you understand what "productive" means.
Do you understand the definition of "reaching, because you're a master of it?[/quote]
Alsoalso, do us both a favor and don't respond to this until you're hammered again.
I don't have class today. Or Monday or Friday or the weekend for that matter, but I had a combined ten hours of sleep Friday through Tuesday evening.
(i know, right?)
I mean if you think you can simulate logic and reading comprehension and an attention span sans the booze please do so. The precedent isn't there tho. And I doubt I'll respond today because I'm still sleepy/have work/need to play GOW2 multiplayer until my crew gets GOW3, but I'll read and stuff.
Also who said anything about equal footing? I'm still immeasurably better than you it's just you actually more reliably respond instead of merely replying reactively to complex/extended trains of thought when you're intoxicated. Like you're a normal person, or something. Who knew?
Originally posted by EminenceLooks like somebody went outside.
I don't have class today. Or Monday or Friday or the weekend for that matter, but I had a combined ten hours of sleep Friday through Tuesday evening.(i know, right?)
I mean if you think you can simulate logic and reading comprehension and an attention span sans the booze please do so. The precedent isn't there tho. And I doubt I'll respond today because I'm still sleepy/have work/need to play GOW2 multiplayer until my crew gets GOW3, but I'll read and stuff.The precedent for me engaging in a debate while inebriated isn't there also. And it won't be today but most likely tomorrow, after some research, and booze of course. And you've acknowledged that I can simulate logic and reading comprehension and attention span on booze so before that, I had no idea that this clarity existed, I just assumed I get all philosophical and argumentative while drunk.
Also who said anything about equal footing? I'm still immeasurably better than you it's just you actually more reliably respond instead of merely replying reactively to complex/extended trains of thought when you're intoxicated. Like you're a normal person, or something. Who knew? [/B]Better than be in regards to what? Star Wars debates? Philosophical? Social policy? Or is the claim "all of the above"? Also, the supposed superiority comes from the fact that it's difficult for me to care about most of these debates, if not all. I mean sure the practice would be paramount for the future but I hardly ever go into it with anything more than a passing thought, which shows up in the text. But once again, booze makes me somewhat argumentative on social issues.
Also, if you'd be so kind, I noticed I have a proclivity (as per your last few lines of your long post) to call people out on definitions. Please show me where I have misused any of these words, as if to say I shouldn't be lecturing people when I don't know how to use said words.
Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
I stopped reading here. And we were doing so well recently, too. Perhaps it wasn't meant to be. 😬Spoiler:
I understand that confirmation bias is the nickname for the latest stone you're hurling in this glass house, but one could make the argument that you fit the definition since you've always held historically that Dooku is more powerful and more skilled than Anakin. Perhaps it's you who's guilty of confirmation bias? 131
Oh my.
Almost every single human being on this planet is a victim of confirmation bias - myself not excluded. There are just people who are aware of that danger and hence question their own ideas, views, opinions every now and then. I'm mainly a scientist - so that's everyday routine for me. You don't strike me as an individual who does such things, considering the fact that your built up your reputation here, by defending your personal opinion about a certain issue without looking left or right.
That being said, you may want to stop perceiving everything contradicting your self-assessment as a personal insult. It's not like I ran around here and asked if you have recently escaped a madhouse, because just a rabid lunatic would come to the conclusions you typed down - or did I?
I carefully watched the clip in question, multiple times, with one frame-by-frame review, and came to the conclusion that you observations were wrong. Since I didn't find any explanation for your interpretation of the material, other than yourself wanting to have Anakin on one level with Dooku in the lightsaber department, I chalked it up to confirmation bias. If that appears unreasonable to you, let me give you another hint: We had a similar discussion before, where you just followed the same pattern of interpretation in Anakin's favor.
I'm not interested in repeating that. I merely used your posting as a contrast to my own observations and not to intiate some debate with you.
ds sorry for this being long even tho we're only really discussing discussion.
DS
Looks like somebody went outside.
😖hifty:
DS
The precedent for me engaging in a debate while inebriated isn't there also. And it won't be today but most likely tomorrow, after some research, and booze of course. And you've acknowledged that I can simulate logic and reading comprehension and attention span on booze so before that, I had no idea that this clarity existed, I just assumed I get all philosophical and argumentative while drunk.
i'd have to go back and look at your previous post to see if it warrants my initial reaction and as such i reserve the right to backpeddle slightly here. so fvck you.
DS
Better than be in regards to what? Star Wars debates? Philosophical? Social policy? Or is the claim "all of the above"?
see my response to the screaming/emotional tirade business.
DS
Also, the supposed superiority comes from the fact that it's difficult for me to care about most of these debates, if not all. I mean sure the practice would be paramount for the future but I hardly ever go into it with anything more than a passing thought, which shows up in the text.
DS
Also, if you'd be so kind, I noticed I have a proclivity (as per your last few lines of your long post) to call people out on definitions. Please show me where I have misused any of these words, as if to say I shouldn't be lecturing people when I don't know how to use said words.
ALSO i agree more with nai's assessment of the clip posted and with the others (minus korto, the fool) on continuity ramifications. also those five seconds of swinging looked really cool.
korto i'm just kidding.
😐
Originally posted by Eminence
you are substantially more tolerable under the influence than when you aren't, except for right now when you're pretty cool... which actually forces me to conclude that you are indeed completely wasted. look around for a bottle.
i'd have to go back and look at your previous post to see if it warrants my initial reaction and as such i reserve the right to backpeddle slightly here. so fvck you.
objective application of logic. there are aspects of all of the above in which your knowledge base far outstrips mine. i don't claim to be a scholar in any of those topics but i also tend as of late to only take up a stance if i know i'm right, usually as a result of both research and reasoning, and historically you rarely make use of either. i don't mean that to be mean and if as stated below you genuinely don't care a whole lot then you won't take it that way.see my response to the screaming/emotional tirade business.
then don't. you have to see why it's ridiculous for you to half ass a debate whatever the reason and get caustic and belligerent when you're called out. not caring doesn't excuse your performance it just means i should ignore you, which i don't want to do because you're occasionally intentionally hilarious and sometimes say legitimate things.
Also, lol at this extremism:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/28/iranian-pastor-faces-execution-for-refusing-to-recant-christian-faith/
Borbarad
Almost every single human being on this planet is a victim of confirmation bias - myself not excluded.
This is an exceedingly rare moment of honesty, humility, and more importantly: vulnerability. I feel as though we're approaching the climax of our long relationship; sarcastic and sardonic barbs exchanged throughout the years have undoubtedly been issued to mask the obvious sexual tension between us. All of this is to say Wow, I never thought I'd see the day where you'd confess something of this nature and it makes you even more attractive to me. I like my partners to be docile and vulnerable and the fact that you're German catapults this feat into truly epic territory as it runs counterintuitive to your very culture. You complete me.
Borbarad
There are just people who are aware of that danger and hence question their own ideas, views, opinions every now and then. I'm mainly a scientist - so that's everyday routine for me. You don't strike me as an individual who does such things, considering the fact that your built up your reputation here, by defending your personal opinion about a certain issue without looking left or right.
[quote]Me
Dude {the anonymous fanboy} [is] persistent.
You, Borbarad[/quote]
Do I see you arguing against the hypothesis that Sidious did fake defeat...?
^ Between this {Addendum: Take note of the fact that I continued to have this same debate with Blaxican in this very thread shortly afterwards, in which I defended the position that Palpatine masterminding the entirety of the duel would be improbable} and the multiple cited examples of my persistent acknowledgement of Palpatine's rivals among Sith and Jedi and the fact that it was I who allowed the alliance to learn the location of the shield generatorintroduced the first evidence from The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia that indicated Exar Kun might be more powerful than the Emperor, I'd say we can dispense with the idea that I don't question opinions or stances on a given issue. In fact, I first came to this forum and was quickly convinced by you and Janus (among others) that the ancient Sith reigned supreme in terms of knowledge, power, and skill. That opinion was subsequently questioned and changed entirely with the passage of time. But the most important fact of all is that I am willing to casually admit my many changes of heart and mind, previous concessions, and discuss such things without getting defensive or clinging to the words "red herring" as though it's some sort of shield that defends me from my previous transgressions and blunders.
Now, I would ask (politely and respectfully) if you could claim the same: Could you provide evidence indicating that you're not guilty of confirmation bias on these issues? You've historically been pro-Dooku & pro-Ragnos and anti-Sidious (at least that would be the general consensus). Do we have evidence of the contrary? Say, have you argued in favor of or at least acknowledged certain facts, ideas, or opinions that could be interpreted as pro-Sidious and anti-Ragnos? Because such facts are evident in canon.
However, in light of this landmark moment in which you admit the possibility of confirmation bias on your end, I will forgo such a question and bask in this little moment between us in which mutual respect and affection has pierced the cheerless walls you've placed around your heart and soul. stoned
Borbarad
That being said, you may want to stop perceiving everything contradicting your self-assessment as a personal insult. It's not like I ran around here and asked if you have recently escaped a madhouse, because just a rabid lunatic would come to the conclusions you typed down - or did I?
I didn't claim that you did, though these things tend to be inevitable with you. I've found that the inexorable problem when you and I chat is that you inevitably start hurling accusations of bias towards me and that's not something I'm interested in reading particularly when you are seemingly reluctant to acknowledge such fallibilities about yourself. That sort of behavior approaches projection and I find it personally irritating. I have openly acknowledged biases of mine without rancor, an admission you previously tried to use against me if I recall. That's not the nature of honest discourse and if we can't have that, then our relationship might be defined solely by the aforementioned copious amounts of belligerent sexual tension. And who wants that?
Borbarad
I carefully watched the clip in question, multiple times, with one frame-by-frame review, and came to the conclusion that you observations were wrong. Since I didn't find any explanation for your interpretation of the material, other than yourself wanting to have Anakin on one level with Dooku in the lightsaber department, I chalked it up to confirmation bias. If that appears unreasonable to you, let me give you another hint: We had a similar discussion before, where you just followed the same pattern of interpretation in Anakin's favor.
I'll address this later, when I respond to your interpretation of the preview. It'll jumpstart this place and KMC will return to its rightful place beneath my heelas a beacon activity for all!
Borbarad
I'm not interested in repeating that. I merely used your posting as a contrast to my own observations and not to intiate some debate with you.
I'll keep this in mind, my love.
Borbarad
I carefully watched the clip in question, multiple times, with one frame-by-frame review, and came to the conclusion that you observations were wrong. Since I didn't find any explanation for your interpretation of the material, other than yourself wanting to have Anakin on one level with Dooku in the lightsaber department, I chalked it up to confirmation bias. If that appears unreasonable to you, let me give you another hint: We had a similar discussion before, where you just followed the same pattern of interpretation in Anakin's favor.
I remain unconvinced by this. One could easily argue that you, who have argued Dooku's primacy where he canonically doesn't have any (i.e. with a certain handsome, cloaked Sith Master), are simply trying to ensure that the Count's reputation remains erect.
Borbarad
1)
What does "breaking a saber lock" have to do with strength at all? Anakin moves his lightsaber sideways and with a nice leverage, which means he's not operating directly against Dooku's strength at all but circumvents it to a certain extend.
In the first lock beginning at approximately the 0:25 mark, Anakin simply powers through it, forcing Dooku's blade in a circular arc and noticeably throwing the Count off balance. Why wouldn't strength play a role here?
Borbarad
2)
Dooku is trembling?
At the 0:32 second mark, Dooku's visible hand and sleeve are visibly trembling with the effort as Anakin again applies enough force to move the Count's blade back towards him at the 0:33 second mark.
Borboarad
Then how the hell is he capable to remove four fingers of his right hand from his lightsaber hilt in order to use the telekinesis against Anakin?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. At the 0:29 second mark, we see that Dooku is uncharacteristically dueling with both hands. The lock begins at 0:30, why should we assume that he's not applying both hands in the lock? That the Count was able to gesture with his fingers doesn't negate or even mitigate the fact that he was trembling with effort, because Anakin reacts instantaneous to Dooku's gesture: he turns and dodges the incoming lamps as Dooku whirls away from his lightsaber. Dooku's gesture and Anakin's reaction occur in the same second.
Borbarad
And who does say that he had to do this in order to break free? That's just an assertion of yours - and not a really good one, since he is apparently able to hold his blade with the fingers of just one hand.
This is untrue. At the 0:25 second mark, we see Dooku using both hands in his saber lock with Anakin. At the 0:29 second mark, right before the second lock, Dooku is again using both hands.
Borbarad
3) Anakin is put on the floor by two of the MagnaGuards after being totally removed from actual confrontation with Dooku by a force manouver of the Count. So we have him losing to two robots and getting tricked with the force by Dooku.
I find this interpretation more than a little skewed. Dooku's Force-based distraction was just that: a tool by which he could escape Anakin's overpowering strength. And downplaying Anakin's vulnerability to a sneak attack by the second MagnaGuard is silly; do we discount Dooku's relative supremacy by taking into account the fact that he was held hostage by a dozen or more pirates when Palpatine managed to singlehandedly obliterate almost fifty stormtroopers during a similar scenario in Empire: Betrayal? No, we don't. It wasn't as though Anakin was outmaneuvered by the droids, one felled him with a sneak attack.
Borbarad
In that light, I'd love to see how this sequence depicts Dooku and Anakin even remotely as equals.
Because the Count, despite initiating the duel himself, was forced to attack him with telekinesis after failing to breach his defenses with the lightsaber?
Borbarad
Taking that into consideration, I wonder why he is incapable of overpowering Dooku physically.
Because Dooku chucked lamps at him with the Force and summoned the aid of MagnaGuards? 😐
Borbarad
Apparently, because the Sith Lord is still lightyears ahead of Skywalker in the force mastery and lightsaber technique departments, showing that they are clearly not equals.
I'm not disputing the Count's superior command of the Force, but there is no evidence in that clip that the Count's lightsaber prowess is "lightyears" ahead of Anakin's.