Relevant. You said I ONLY post from one POV. I refuted that claim.
Not relevant to my point.
Yes it is, or at least, it used to be
No, it has never generated a meaningful discussion for you on this site. roughly 15 tries, and all failures.
Maybe you're not being honest with me, or yourself?
I've had some success.
No you haven't.
You realize how easy it is for me to check and confirm that, right?
Fallacy of the All or Every
Do you mean the All or Nothing falacy, because there is no "All or Every".
It doesn't fit the definition of all or none. I don't know what you think I said, but you seem confused.
Thanks for the critiques!
I get the feeling you failed to accept the critiques, but I don't actually care.
Not relevant to my point.
Your point was that I only post from a single perspective, was it not? Let's see, you said "You post this site, and similar viewpoints exclusively."
You then followed up with "If you were interested in discussion and learning there would be some variety". If you are claiming that naturalnews.com and counterpunch.org are not the same. Since you like the definition game, the definition of variety is "the quality or state of being different or diverse; the absence of uniformity, sameness, or monotony." These two sites are diverse from each other, therefore, they contain "some variety."
Secondly, you state that discussion can only be had if "some variety" of posts are made. I refute that claim. Discussion can be had from a single viewpoint. I can hold a single viewpoint, and entertain ideas from others' comments. The OP does not have to be from diverse viewpoints to garner discussion. It is the comments PLUS the OP that generate the variety of POV.
No, it has never generated a meaningful discussion for you on this site. roughly 15 tries
I guess I'll keep trying until the level of discussion satisfies your definition. This post alone geneated a discussion between two or three other posters. My post on Fukishima water issue brought out some repsones that helped educate me.My post on race brought out a couple of points. It didn't get more than 2-3 responses deep, but it still is more than zero.
Do you mean the All or Nothing falacy, because there is no "All or Every".
There is more than one source, you know.
Like this one
I get the feeling you failed to accept the critiques
I don't have to accept them to appreciate them. Thanks again!
Your point was that I only post from a single perspective, was it not?
No. Pay attention, I'm not going to repeat myself.
If you are claiming that naturalnews.com and counterpunch.org are not the same
That is not what I said and has nothing to do with anything I said.
These two sites are diverse from each other, therefore, they contain "some variety.
When you say "diverse" do you mean "different"?
There's not much "diversity" in sites being repeated 15 times, or all posts being to extremely biased politics.
None at all. Just you playing the same game over and over, with no variety.
There is more than one source, you know. Like this one
That's not a source, it's an entertainment article. A source would be a dictionary, wikipedia, or the like. None of which include your made up phrase.
I can make up a fallacy also, that doesn't make it a common expression. You can't just invent a word and then pretend it's valid.
What are you doing here? Is this your idea of discussion, or debate? Are you trying to win? I was curious about your motives, you've made it clear that they are malicious, and you are not open to discussion.
Relevant. You said I ONLY post from one POV. I refuted that claim. You then claim it is irrelevant. I assume that the original claim is therefore also irrelevant?
Yes, it has an opinion, and that opinion is usually, if not always, leftist. However left it is, that does not necessarily mean it is pro or anti- specific party. Those opinion pieces that are blindly partisan, I rarely, if ever post. I don't dismiss something simply due to its source. for example, Robert Fisk is leftist, but is also one of the most, if not the most, in tune western journalist in the Middle East. But, so what? What does it matter? Is the article interesting? Is it boring? Is it stupid? Is it ridiculous? Does it have a point? Does it have a conclusion? Does it use logic or emotion? These are the things that interest me. Sorry you don't like the source.
Yes it is, or at least, it used to be. Post an opinion piece. comment on opinion piece, one way or another. Let people agree/disagree with either the piece or my comment. Tell me a better way. I'll listen.
I've had some success. Not great, but some. I'm not going to cry over not getting responses, it happens. These pieces tend to be pretty long, and not everyone is going to spend the time reading it, digesting it, and then write out a detailed response. C'est la vie
See, I wasn't quoting, I was using the word saying as if a person were talking, and when I do that, I use quotation marks as if they were in a dialogue. I truly don't care if you like that form of writing or not, I am not going to change it.
Fallacy of the All or Every. Usually don't is not the same as Zero. Some is better than zero. Your conclusion is based on a logical fallacy.
Meh, It's fine. Read it or don't. Comment or don't. If I gain anything or learn anything, good for me. if not, it cost me a whopping 15 seconds of my life. The trade off to me is worth it.
Thanks for the critiques!