Irrelevant.
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?
You more than anything post one of the most slanted sites.
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.
That is not a good way to start a discussion.
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.
Are you trying to say that you've tried it about 15 times with no success, but you still think the next one will work? I don't think you're that dumb.
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, that's how quoting works.
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.
You think 0 data points is good? You usually don't get a response.
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.
Or this is actually the most effective thing you've been able to come up with?
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!
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!
Irrelevant. You more than anything post one of the most slanted sites.
That is not a good way to start a discussion. Are you trying to say that you've tried it about 15 times with no success, but you still think the next one will work?
I don't think you're that dumb.
You weren't writing dialogue, you were quoting.. Quotation marks are not used how you think. Sorry if that confuses you.
You did. "I generally learn a lot more by listening to, and attempting to find holes in other's arguments than by simply dismissing them as stupid or childish, and simply saying, 'i'm right, you're wrong, so you should just shut up and agree with me!'."
See, that's how quoting works.
You think 0 data points is good? You usually don't get a response. Or this is actually the most effective thing you've been able to come up with?
I don't believe either.