+1 Purin

Trolling? I think you're the one that is trolling. Surely no one can be that stupid that they contradict what they say two lines below.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> I got one.  An old inflation argument between you and myself a few months ago. 

http://www.imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=145540&p=3

You'll notice a big debate between you and myself on ideal inflationary policies, halfway through which the argument is abruptly ended because the series of arguments I placed were left unanswered by you and when I called you on this... the response was not an effort to rectify the issue, but a simple "Well, I've made my point, Zarf."

Okay, so then did the series of arguments "prove ruinous" to any of my ideas or philosophies?

Xeno wrote:

"Okay, so then did the series of arguments "prove ruinous" to any of my ideas or philosophies?

Zarf responded:

"Yes"

If it was ruinous, then I couldn't possibly write a response to it now, could I?  If I can write a response to it, then perhaps it wasn't that it was ruinous to my position, but, rather, maybe I was just bored with the discussion?

I did write a response, though:

http://www.imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=1467796#p1467796

Therefore, it was not ruinous to my position.

Zarf, do you relent, then, and admit the possibility that perhaps the reason I might not respond to a post is for another reason besides that it ruins my position?

MAYBE, it could have been that I was simply bored of the discussion?

1: I had to close that thread because a clear rules violation on your part had taken place.  Don't try to be disingenuous by pretending there was another reason behind it.  In fact, I very clearly said in there "If you want to rehash this discussion, make a new thread or bring it into this thread."  You're resorting to a pitiful ad hominem here.

2: I literally had 1 minute to answer that post... you had a chance to answer my arguments there.  It's one thing if you said "I'm really busy" or some other real life justification.  Rather, you made the active cognitive decision to neglect the argument, saying, quote:

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Well, I've made my point, Zarf.  The US dollar is soon becoming the short-term safe-haven asset for investors, but because of inflation they can't hold cash for long.  It's simply the short-term default safe-haven until people can figure out what asset will retain its value with inflation.

Now, I'm forgiving of life circumstances that prevent replies.  If you remember, there was a free trade debate you and I had earlier in which you clearly stated that you were busy in real life, and couldn't give a comprehensive reply.  That is a legitimate excuse.  The above, however, was clearly an active choice to advance your political stance while ignoring my arguments against it.  If you had answers to my post, you could have provided them when I asked for them.  Alternatively, you could have said "I'm busy."  You chose neither.  So no... due to empirical observation of the way you bow out of certain threads, that was clearly not an instance in which you had a real life justification for not posting, because you're generally an honest person who says "I'm busy."

3: Even if everything else is wrong, time is the tiebreaker.

This forum is a place for people to openly and completely discuss their ideas with one another and, through the disagreement and debate, arguments which were formerly simply bits and pieces of a larger argument can be expanded, hashed out, and better understood.  As a result, because the knowledge we can consider and interpret within the forum is limited to the knowledge that is expressed within the forum.  Within the context of our discourse in this forum, I cannot assume that someone else is correct on their argument without seeing and being able to interpret the argument.  So when you fail to provide that argument, within the context of this discourse, that argument does not exist.

To assume otherwise would be the same as if I said you were wrong on everything you have ever said, because I have super-secret arguments and evidence that I can't show anyone, but you should just trust that you're wrong on everything you said because I'm asserting it and I have a nice smile. 

"and I have a nice smile.  smile"

You never give me one of these nice smiles Zarf!

I'm still waiting, Einstein, for you to admit that there may be another reason why I did not respond to some of your posts besides the possibility that it might have "proved ruinous to my philosophies or ideas".

Just admit that there are other reasons I might not have responded some examples include:

I might have been bored with the discussion.
Maybe I was ignoring you due to an accusation, insult, or outright slander you had perpetrated on me.
Perhaps I could have been busy with other matters.
The post in question might have been so ridiculous it did not warrant a response.
Maybe I didn't notice the post.

The list goes on...

Logically, there are many possible causes for my not responding to a post.  If you can't see this, then what is the point in moving on to your next claim in the discussion?

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Now, although I very much doubt Einstein would ever admit his flaw in thought process, I have faith that Zarf is capable of recognising when he is wrong:

I thus repeat my question to Zarf:

Zarf, do you relent, then, and admit the possibility that perhaps the reason I might not respond to a post is for another reason besides that it ruins my position?

I am simply asking you to recognize the logical possibility of this.

If you read my prior post... I said the following:

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Now, I'm forgiving of life circumstances that prevent replies.  If you remember, there was a free trade debate you and I had earlier in which you clearly stated that you were busy in real life, and couldn't give a comprehensive reply.  That is a legitimate excuse.  The above, however, was clearly an active choice to advance your political stance while ignoring my arguments against it.  If you had answers to my post, you could have provided them when I asked for them.  Alternatively, you could have said "I'm busy."  You chose neither.  So no... due to empirical observation of the way you bow out of certain threads, that was clearly not an instance in which you had a real life justification for not posting, because you're generally an honest person who says "I'm busy."

So... yes... I do recognize such.  That being said, I cited the above example because, from a behavioral perspective, your action in opting out was very distinct from your actions when you legitimately opt out of discussions.  THAT is why I called you out on the inflation thread.  It was not a generalization.  I had a quote which very specifically indicated that you were outright ignoring my arguments.  In fact, I could go back in that thread and cite a few arguments within that thread which you outright ignored.  So no, this is not a generalization on my part.  It is an observation of your behavior to determine that you actively chose to ignore the arguments within that thread, but continue participating.

Challenge: Does that mean, for the record, that I can post every individual argument which you have failed to answer, and you'll provide an answer with which we can have a debate?

It's incontestable: not only have I proven it according to logic, but also through empirical demonstration of the fact.

Einstein's first statement was that I do not reply / ignore posts because they prove ruinous to my position.  The post you gave as an example was clearly NOT ruinous to my position since I adequately addressed your counter arguments in a new thread.  Yet although initially I did not respond to it, it was clearly not because I couldn't refute your arguments.  Therefore, Einstein's accusation against me is unfounded.  And he needs to admit to this fact before I see any point in dealing with any of his other claims against my character.

Einstein's fallacy is that he claims that the posts I do not respond to I do not respond to because I can't refute the points presented in them.  Unless I am misinterpreting his accusation.  Is he saying then, that it is only SOME of the posts I do not respond to I do not respond to because the points presented therein prove ruinous to my philosophies or ideas?  Which is it, Einstein?  All or some?  If it is only SOME, you need to clarify your accusation against me.

Einstein's accusation: "Xeno you fail to respond to other people's post which would prove ruinous to your ideas and philosophies."

This statement suggests that EVERY post I do not respond to I do not respond to because I can't refute the points therein.  This is clearly a misleading, statement if he really wants to refer to only some of the posts which I do not respond to.

This should be re-written then.  I suggest:

'Xeno, there are times when you fail to respond to other people's posts, and I suspect that the reason you do not is because sometimes SOME of those posts prove ruinous to your ideas and philosophies.'

Does Einstein want to qualify his statement thus?

If so, would Einstein please clarify as to which percentage it is of the posts that I do not respond to he thinks I do not respond to because I can't refute the points therein?

Is it 10%?  or 90%?

50%?

I ask again, what percentage of the posts does he estimate I do not respond to because I can't adequately do so?  What evidence is there upon which he might base this estimation?

Or, like most else of what he says, is he just pulling it out of his @rse?

"start by answering one of the challenges instead of looking for a loophole."

I started exactly where you said you wanted to start, with your very first point: your claim that I don't respond to posts which prove ruinous to my ideas or philosophies.

Like you usually do, you will ignore empirical and rational proof of your fallacies, and resort to personal attacks and accusations.  So there is no point in discussing anything with you.  There is only one way I will continue this, and that is if you admit that on your first point presented, you are in error.  In addition, if you want me to continue this in a civil manner without resorting to personal attacks against you tit-for-tat, you could apologize for your false accusation against my character.