• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When morons breed...

slingblade said:
His arguments seem to be formed from the least substance available, and a total disregard of facts, evidence, and relevant details will always, always, always be maintained.
Click to expand...


Is he a fool or a troll, do you think?
 
Just because one has the right to hold an opinion, that does not in any way absolve him of the responsibility to make sure his opinions are based on fact, on sound, valid evidence.

If you hold an opinon that you formed from poor information, your opinion is also going to be poor. But you do indeed have every right to be as wrong as you like.
 
Architect said:
Is he a fool or a troll, do you think?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Longevity and consistency seem to rule out the usual trollish behavior pattern. Yet the arguments also conform to that pattern in their lack of substance or veracity. So both are accurate. In my opinion, of course.

Edit: The arguments are often presented as a "devil's advocate" position, but coincidentally happen to agree with the personal opinions held, as well.
 
Last edited:
g4macdad said:
How can someone's opinion be stupid or wrong?

To me, you are only making yourself look really, really stupid.

That's my opinion.;)
Click to expand...

How can someone's opinion be stupid or wrong?

I can't look stupid, because it's my opinion.

You're only making yourself look really, really stupid.

(Actually, you've done that before)
 
slingblade said:
Yes.

Longevity and consistency seem to rule out the usual trollish behavior pattern. Yet the arguments also conform to that pattern in their lack of substance or veracity. So both are accurate. In my opinion, of course.

Edit: The arguments are often presented as a "devil's advocate" position, but coincidentally happen to agree with the personal opinions held, as well.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion.

We appreciate it, and will give it careful consideration, but guess what. It is no more valid then anyone else's. :cool:
 
Actually that's a patently ludicrous suggestion.

I have professional opinions on design and buildings which are based on years of university level education and thereafter extensive practical experience. These clearly would carry more weight than someone with little or no understanding of the field.

Similarly any position should be sufficiently rigorous to withstand interrogation and scrutiny. One cannot simply claim that it is your "opinion" as a means to avoid such a process.

To suggest otherwise is sheer foolishness.
 
Architect said:
Actually that's a patently ludicrous suggestion.

I have professional opinions on design and buildings which are based on years of university level education and thereafter extensive practical experience. These clearly would carry more weight than someone with little or no understanding of the field.

Similarly any position should be sufficiently rigorous to withstand interrogation and scrutiny. One cannot simply claim that it is your "opinion" as a means to avoid such a process.

To suggest otherwise is sheer foolishness.
Click to expand...

Oh! You are an architect so we should value your opinion on justice more than DD. Makes perfect sense, again.:eye-poppi
 
g4macdad said:
Oh! You are an architect so we should value your opinion on justice more than DD. Makes perfect sense, again.:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong point, is it? That's not what he was saying. He's illustrating the fact that some opinions carry more weight in a given subject than others. In his case, his architectual opinions carry more weight in matters of structure and architecture than, say, yours or mine; likewise, someone familiar with legal matters would have an opinion that carries more weight than, say, his or ours.

Really, geefor, you ought to try thinking about what you read before you make more of a fool of yourself.
 
Z said:
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong point, is it? That's not what he was saying. He's illustrating the fact that some opinions carry more weight in a given subject than others. In his case, his architectual opinions carry more weight in matters of structure and architecture than, say, yours or mine; likewise, someone familiar with legal matters would have an opinion that carries more weight than, say, his or ours.

Really, geefor, you ought to try thinking about what you read before you make more of a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

Whatever he was trying to say didn't matter because his original statement
I have professional opinions on design and buildings which are based on years of university level education and thereafter extensive practical experience. These clearly would carry more weight than someone with little or no understanding of the field.
Click to expand...
says that his opinion on this very matter is meaningless.

The fact that you feel the need to reply to a post not directed at you makes you look like a fool.
 
g4macdad said:
How can someone's opinion be stupid or wrong?

To me, you are only making yourself look really, really stupid.

That's my opinion.;)
Click to expand...


Actually, Lonewulf has made good sense many-a-time. I object to any implication that he is of the stupid ilk. He has demonstrated time and time again that he is everything to the contrary.

Having said that, someone can harbor a stupid opinion when it is based on obvious fallacy or fiction despite others' attempts at providing credible evidence to the contrary or a sheer stubborn refusal to look facts in the eye.

Of course, that is just my opinion. ;)
 
g4macdad said:
Whatever he was trying to say didn't matter because his original statement says that his opinion on this very matter is meaningless.

The fact that you feel the need to reply to a post not directed at you makes you look like a fool.
Click to expand...

You really have this need to label other people as fools.

I suppose that's the Christian in you talking...



(This is supposed to be where I make some quip about stoned people in glass houses or something, but frankly it would just go over your head.)
 
g4macdad said:
Whatever he was trying to say didn't matter because his original statement says that his opinion on this very matter is meaningless.
Click to expand...

I see. Well, in that case you feel free to tell us where the legal position I set out in my posts was factually incorrect and then set out, in similar legal terms, the position as you understand it.

I shan't hold my breath, for you have yet to post anything of substance on this thread thus far and frankly I doubt you have the wherewithall to do so anyway. In fact I'm almost tempted to label you a DD sock puppet.

A propos of which, where is the fool who thinks that it is "acceptable" for parents to kill their children?
 
Boy you people can make a mountain out of a mole hill.

It is some people's opinion here that the verdict was morally wrong.

OPINION!

This cannot be argued, as we all have different moral values and different ways of seeing things.

Why are you arguing this?:boggled:
 
And if that were true, we would be forced to accept that every half baked theory and opinion had equal weight to a well formed, detailed analysis based on evidence and argument.

May I respectfully suggest that, if you and yer close chum DD feel so strongly about this, you actually try and compose a detailed argument rather than whinging?
 
Architect said:
And if that were true, we would be forced to accept that every half baked theory and opinion had equal weight to a well formed, detailed analysis based on evidence and argument.

May I respectfully suggest that, if you and yer close chum DD feel so strongly about this, you actually try and compose a detailed argument rather than whinging?
Click to expand...

Are you serious?:boggled:

Exactly how is anyone being forced to accept anything here?

I will never accept your opinion on this matter. No matter how "strong" you think your argument is.

We have differing fundamental beliefs. You can accept that or not. But it doesn't change anything.:cool:
 
I'm done with this thread. I suspect my point of view is clear by now.

I have previously been accused of prolonging threads simply to see how long I could get them to be. Wouldn't want that accusation to appear again. :)

Just a few minor points:

Architect, I did not lie. I may have missed the "by design" bit when replying to you earlier (there was a lot going on at the time), but I only find it is acceptable for parents to "kill" their children by accident. This should be clear from my other posts.

Kereberos, calling me a Swede in disguise is stepping over the line. :mad :)

slingblade, I hope you one day apply for the Randi Prize as you seem to know what I write despite having me on ignore! :)

Thanks for the debate, folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom