Jon Venables ID'd....apparently

14445474950241

Comments

  • Penny CrayonPenny Crayon Posts: 36,158
    Forum Member
    spacecube wrote: »
    And I get accused of pedantry! LOL

    Ever heard of irony?;)
  • AnnaliseZAnnaliseZ Posts: 3,912
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spacecube wrote: »
    And I get accused of pedantry! LOL

    Yes. You were being pedantic. Don't dish it out if you can't take it back at you.
  • stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spacecube wrote: »
    And I get accused of pedantry! LOL

    It's not pedantic to say that "what stifles discussion (or even consensus-forming discussion) is difference of opinion" is a nonsense.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 489
    Forum Member
    stoatie wrote: »
    So how does difference of opinion stifle consensus-forming discussion? Surely that's what drives consensus onwards, if consensus is even supposed to be the goal.

    If there's no difference of opinion, there's no consensus-forming discussion because consensus exists and discussion is therefore unnecessary.

    If there's no difference of opinion, there is a discussion leading to consensus, so therefore difference of opinion stifles consensus-forming discussion. You can't have consensus without a discussion
  • Hobbit FeetHobbit Feet Posts: 18,798
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    None of those even look like words anymore
  • stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spacecube wrote: »
    If there's no difference of opinion, there is a discussion leading to consensus, so therefore difference of opinion stifles consensus-forming discussion. You can't have consensus without a discussion

    That's your logic fail right there. One doesn't follow from the other. Just because lack of differing opinion may lead to consensus-forming discussion, it doesn't mean that differing opinion stifles it. There's no logical basis for that step whatsoever- you've just plonked your faulty assertion there and put "therefore" in front of it like there's some sort of causal relationship, when there plainly isn't.

    What exactly is the relevance of this latest blind alley, by the way?
  • SoupbowlSoupbowl Posts: 2,172
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Honestly you lot! I leave you on your own for a morning and look at the state you get yourselves into. Il see if I can make time to pop in later and help you guys out. It's reached the point where a level head is needed. I have been pleasantly suprised by some posts. I may have underestimated Hobbit feet. Peace.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 489
    Forum Member
    AnnaliseZ wrote: »
    Yes. You were being pedantic. Don't dish it out if you can't take it back at you.

    Nonsense again, If you say 'I like kids', and on the basis of that everything thinks you're a paedo, it's not pedantic to point out that you are not a paedo
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 489
    Forum Member
    stoatie wrote: »
    That's your logic fail right there. One doesn't follow from the other.

    Total rubbish, if you want to reach a consensus of opinion, then you have to have a discussion
  • stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spacecube wrote: »
    Total rubbish, if you want to reach a consensus of opinion, then you have to have a discussion

    Did you even read the post you quoted? That's not the part I was taking issue with. The point is that it doesn't follow from that that "therefore difference of opinion stifles consensus forming discussion". The truth of one does not in any way prove, or even imply, the truth of the other.

    BTW, you can have assumed consensus in exactly the same way you can have tacit approval.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 489
    Forum Member
    stoatie wrote: »
    Did you even read the post you quoted? That's not the part I was taking issue with. The point is that it doesn't follow from that that "therefore" difference of opinion stifles consensus forming discussion.

    BTW, you can have assumed consensus in exactly the same way you can have tacit approval.

    I'm not talking about assumed consensus, I'm talking about consensus forming discussion
  • stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spacecube wrote: »
    I'm not talking about assumed consensus, I'm talking about consensus forming discussion

    Again. Did you even read the post you quoted? Try reading the bit BEFORE the "BTW". It's the main part. Hence the "BTW", indicating a side-point.

    And BTW (look! this is a side-point!)- if you're talking about consensus-forming discussion and asserting that you need consensus-forming discussion in order to have it, then I'll agree, but question what exactly is the point in such a redundant argument?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,692
    Forum Member
    Soupbowl wrote: »
    Honestly you lot! I leave you on your own for a morning and look at the state you get yourselves into. Il see if I can make time to pop in later and help you guys out. It's reached the point where a level head is needed. I have been pleasantly suprised by some posts. I may have underestimated Hobbit feet. Peace.

    Cool story bro.
  • AnnaliseZAnnaliseZ Posts: 3,912
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spacecube wrote: »
    Nonsense again, If you say 'I like kids', and on the basis of that everything thinks you're a paedo, it's not pedantic to point out that you are not a paedo

    Ummm right.

    What a random example.

    And you're being pedantic right now. :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 36,630
    Forum Member
    Soupbowl wrote: »
    Honestly you lot! I leave you on your own for a morning and look at the state you get yourselves into. Il see if I can make time to pop in later and help you guys out. It's reached the point where a level head is needed. I have been pleasantly suprised by some posts. I may have underestimated Hobbit feet. Peace.

    No rush. :D
  • stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Soupbowl wrote: »
    Honestly you lot! I leave you on your own for a morning and look at the state you get yourselves into. Il see if I can make time to pop in later and help you guys out. It's reached the point where a level head is needed. I have been pleasantly suprised by some posts. I may have underestimated Hobbit feet. Peace.

    Great. Soupbowl's back. Let joy be unconvincing.
  • Hobbit FeetHobbit Feet Posts: 18,798
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What did I do to get a special mention?

    Actually I'd rather not know.
  • BrambleRambleBrambleRamble Posts: 142
    Forum Member
    Soupbowl wrote: »
    Honestly you lot! I leave you on your own for a morning and look at the state you get yourselves into. Il see if I can make time to pop in later and help you guys out. It's reached the point where a level head is needed. I have been pleasantly suprised by some posts. I may have underestimated Hobbit feet. Peace.

    Please don't bother. You're a rubbish troll.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 489
    Forum Member
    stoatie wrote: »
    Again. Did you even read the post you quoted? Try reading the bit BEFORE the "BTW". It's the main part. Hence the "BTW", indicating a side-point.

    And BTW (look! this is a side-point!)- if you're talking about consensus-forming discussion and asserting that you need consensus-forming discussion in order to have it, then I'll agree, but question what exactly is the point in such a redundant argument?

    I'm glad you'll agree, that is what I meant. It was a throwaway remark, it wasn't an argument.

    I presented what I thought was an interesting argument about Carr, Venables & Thompson being living legends earlier this morning, hoping for some discussion on that leading to a consensus. Should I assume consensus that they are living legends, on the basis of there being no arguments made against it?
  • Cally's mumCally's mum Posts: 4,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Please don't bother. You're a rubbish troll.

    Wouldn't that be a Womble?? :D
  • Cally's mumCally's mum Posts: 4,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spacecube wrote: »
    I'm glad you'll agree, that is what I meant. It was a throwaway remark, it wasn't an argument.

    I presented what I thought was an interesting argument about Carr, Venables & Thompson being living legends earlier this morning, hoping for some discussion on that leading to a consensus. Should I assume consensus that they are living legends, on the basis of there being no arguments made against it?

    I must have missed that argument. Which I disagree with. They're not 'living legends' and I don't know anyone who would claim that they are. Certainly, no-one on this thread has done so.

    Unfortunately, the argument (if there was one), has since been derailed by assertions that argument stifles discussion and that all discussion must lead to consensus (which is completely wrong. Sometimes it does. Sometimes people agree to disagree even after discussion.

    Which is basically what everyone else has been saying. .
  • BrambleRambleBrambleRamble Posts: 142
    Forum Member
    Wouldn't that be a Womble?? :D

    Not sure what Wombles actually are...apart from, well, Wombles.

    I should have said "Don't bother, you're a shit troll". Which he is.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 36,630
    Forum Member
    spacecube wrote: »
    I'm glad you'll agree, that is what I meant. It was a throwaway remark, it wasn't an argument.

    I presented what I thought was an interesting argument about Carr, Venables & Thompson being living legends earlier this morning, hoping for some discussion on that leading to a consensus. Should I assume consensus that they are living legends, on the basis of there being no arguments made against it?

    No...

    but keep digging.
  • BrambleRambleBrambleRamble Posts: 142
    Forum Member
    spacecube wrote: »
    I'm glad you'll agree, that is what I meant. It was a throwaway remark, it wasn't an argument.

    I presented what I thought was an interesting argument about Carr, Venables & Thompson being living legends earlier this morning, hoping for some discussion on that leading to a consensus. Should I assume consensus that they are living legends, on the basis of there being no arguments made against it?

    You really have no idea what you're wittering on about do you? You've painted yourself into a corner and are trying desperately to come off as intelligent. It's not working.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,692
    Forum Member
    spacecube wrote: »
    I'm glad you'll agree, that is what I meant. It was a throwaway remark, it wasn't an argument.

    I presented what I thought was an interesting argument about Carr, Venables & Thompson being living legends earlier this morning, hoping for some discussion on that leading to a consensus. Should I assume consensus that they are living legends, on the basis of there being no arguments made against it?

    "Assume". lol :D

    I was always taught to never assume.
This discussion has been closed.