DARPA developes self-guided sniper bullets

[grumbler]

Don't intervene.  Let them bleed each other.

Bleed?  I am i a battle of wits with an unarmed man.  This isn't a matter of bleeding, it is a dancing weasel show. 

[DGuller]

Actually, I noted that he and Hans may both be tribal in their thinking.  Does this mean that I am implying that Hans favors strict gun control?

Supremely clever.

Now, you will note from my post that what i was actually "accusing" DG and Hans of was "contempt for opinions other than your own, and... over-use of hyperbole."  Guller has not disputed either of those. 

Can't dispute every accusation, that would make the thread grow exponentially.  Every rebuttal brings in two counter-accusations, so I have to let some go.

Bleed?  I am i a battle of wits with an unarmed man.  This isn't a matter of bleeding, it is a dancing weasel show.

At least we agree on the nature of the discussion.  I imagine we disagree on the identity of the witless weasel, though.

[grumbler]

At least we agree on the nature of the discussion.  I imagine we disagree on the identity of the witless weasel, though.

If we do, you are the only one in doubt.  So far, you have made zero points and I have at least two of three, with the third (whether "tribal thinking" imples "ardently pro-con-control") in contention.  And the third one is about to be won, as well, I think.  To wit:

The classic example of tribal thinking, to me, comes out in almost any discussion of our respective alma maters (or, in the case, of MBM, the Big Twelve conference).  We don't allow mere evidence to persuade us that any given school is, overall, better than our alma mater (or, in MBM's case, that the assignment of TV rights doesn't inescapably lock in Big Twelve members), and that's pretty much the definition of tribal thinking:  following the tribe's conclusions rather than thinking about something objectively.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control. Ergo, a mere reference to tribal thinking does not imply anything about a position on gun control.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think you can convincingly label anybody's thinking as "tribal" without being able to identify the tribe to which they belong.

[DGuller]

At least we agree on the nature of the discussion.  I imagine we disagree on the identity of the witless weasel, though.

If we do, you are the only one in doubt.  So far, you have made zero points and I have at least two of three, with the third (whether "tribal thinking" imples "ardently pro-con-control") in contention.  And the third one is about to be won, as well, I think.  To wit:

The classic example of tribal thinking, to me, comes out in almost any discussion of our respective alma maters (or, in the case, of MBM, the Big Twelve conference).  We don't allow mere evidence to persuade us that any given school is, overall, better than our alma mater (or, in MBM's case, that the assignment of TV rights doesn't inescapably lock in Big Twelve members), and that's pretty much the definition of tribal thinking:  following the tribe's conclusions rather than thinking about something objectively.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control. Ergo, a mere reference to tribal thinking does not imply anything about a position on gun control.

Yes, you're a real winner.

Not sure how any of the things you posted are relevant or follow.  All I've done to set you off on this bizarre rant is express deep disdain for the typical gun nuts' arguments.  That disdain comes from my intolerance of extremely poor arguments based on both shoddy facts and shoddy logical chain, not from any tribal allegiance that I may have.  Gun nuts do have some of the worst arguments we hear in public discourse, because they're trying to pass off costly cultural preference that they feel extremely strongly about as free lunch.

[Razgovory]

Sometimes I wonder if Grumbler can really have so little self-awareness.

[grumbler]

Yes, you're a real winner.

Given that you are no longer contesting my third point, either, I'd say that, yes, I am. 

Not sure how any of the things you posted are relevant or follow.

I know you aren't sure how to follow an argument. Don't let it worry you; your posting style doesn't depend on that ability, it seems to me.    

All I've done to set you off on this bizarre rant is express deep disdain for the typical gun nuts' arguments.  That disdain comes from my intolerance of extremely poor arguments based on both shoddy facts and shoddy logical chain, not from any tribal allegiance that I may have.  Gun nuts do have some of the worst arguments we hear in public discourse, because they're trying to pass off costly cultural preference that they feel extremely strongly about as free lunch.

That rant about how " if we're all going to be willfully obtuse while pretending to discuss things, then this forum is not going to be a very enjoyable place?"  That wasn't me.  And the quote you so disdain was a great example of bullshit hyperbole (almost identical to your own bullshit hyperbole, but from the other tribe).  Hypocrite much?

[DGuller]

Given that you are no longer contesting my third point, either, I'd say that, yes, I am. 

This isn't an endurance contest.  You don't get to win by repeating an idiotic point n + 1 times when it's refuted only n times.  Some of us do have other things to occupy our time.

I know you aren't sure how to follow an argument. Don't let it worry you; your posting style doesn't depend on that ability, it seems to me.    

Charming.

That rant about how " if we're all going to be willfully obtuse while pretending to discuss things, then this forum is not going to be a very enjoyable place?"  That wasn't me.

Yes, you got me, that was me.  It wasn't a rant, though, it was more an expression of exasperation.  Maintaining a conversation with you is a very difficult task for a number of reasons, and one of the bigger reasons is your lack of desire to communicate in good faith.  If something can be misinterpreted, because it wasn't written like an Apple EUA, it will be misinterpreted by you in an attempt to make what you think is a convincing point.  It actually appears extremely pathetic, not that you're able to appreciate it, but that doesn't really make it more enjoyable to me.

[Ed Anger]

DG wants the plans for these magic bullets to send to his masters in Moscow.

[grumbler]

Yes, you got me, that was me.  It wasn't a rant, though, it was more an expression of exasperation.  Maintaining a conversation with you is a very difficult task for a number of reasons, and one of the bigger reasons is your lack of desire to communicate in good faith.  If something can be misinterpreted, because it wasn't written like an Apple EUA, it will be misinterpreted by you in an attempt to make what you think is a convincing point.  It actually appears extremely pathetic, not that you're able to appreciate it, but that doesn't really make it more enjoyable to me.

The Dancing Weasel dances.  You say stupid shit, I call you on it, and thus it is somehow my fault that you have to eat your words!    I have misinterpreted nothing you have said; you have said silly shit about what I have said (note that i could provide several examples of rants, like the one I used, or a rant that went on about "fanatically idiotic arguments in support of gun fetishism," while you merely fling shit without providing any examples).  I think I know who is intellectually dishonest in this discussion, and whose arguments and weaseling is "extremely pathetic," but go ahead and continue to pretend that it is me, because I love that shit.  Once you turn to making the argument about me (and I note that Mongers is silent on this obvious ad hom argument  ), I know that it is because, though you have run out of intellectual arguments, you are too stubborn to stop.  Pray, continue.  Add in the bit about how you were traumatized by being accused of being dishonest as a kid.  That was a howler, and I don't remember exactly how it goes.

[grumbler]

DG wants the plans for these magic bullets to send to his masters in Moscow.

I thought they put the pistol right up to the head in Moscow.

[DGuller]

Yes, you got me, that was me.  It wasn't a rant, though, it was more an expression of exasperation.  Maintaining a conversation with you is a very difficult task for a number of reasons, and one of the bigger reasons is your lack of desire to communicate in good faith.  If something can be misinterpreted, because it wasn't written like an Apple EUA, it will be misinterpreted by you in an attempt to make what you think is a convincing point.  It actually appears extremely pathetic, not that you're able to appreciate it, but that doesn't really make it more enjoyable to me.

The Dancing Weasel dances.  You say stupid shit, I call you on it, and thus it is somehow my fault that you have to eat your words!    I have misinterpreted nothing you have said; you have said silly shit about what I have said (note that i could provide several examples of rants, like the one I used, or a rant that went on about "fanatically idiotic arguments in support of gun fetishism," while you merely fling shit without providing any examples).  I think I know who is intellectually dishonest in this discussion, and whose arguments and weaseling is "extremely pathetic," but go ahead and continue to pretend that it is me, because I love that shit.  Once you turn to making the argument about me (and I note that Mongers is silent on this obvious ad hom argument  ), I know that it is because, though you have run out of intellectual arguments, you are too stubborn to stop.  Pray, continue.  Add in the bit about how you were traumatized by being accused of being dishonest as a kid.  That was a howler, and I don't remember exactly how it goes.

Seriously, what is your problem?  You've gone off half-cocked at me with no provocation, and seem very determined to keep it personal.  I really don't get that. 

Yes, eventually such a behavior does turn around to be a discussion about you, and generally not a very flattering one.  I wonder why.

[grumbler]

Seriously, what is your problem?  You've gone off half-cocked at me with no provocation, and seem very determined to keep it personal.  I really don't get that. 

Yes, eventually such a behavior does turn around to be a discussion about you, and generally not a very flattering one.  I wonder why.

Seriously, I love watching weasels dance.  It's not a problem, as long as there are weasels.  Pray continue the ad homs.  I love those, as well. 

[mongers]

What an intellectual tour de force. 

Game, set and match to Grumbler. 

[DGuller]

Seriously, what is your problem?  You've gone off half-cocked at me with no provocation, and seem very determined to keep it personal.  I really don't get that. 

Yes, eventually such a behavior does turn around to be a discussion about you, and generally not a very flattering one.  I wonder why.

Seriously, I love watching weasels dance.  It's not a problem, as long as there are weasels.  Pray continue the ad homs.  I love those, as well. 

Dude, you're the one who went in guns blazing with ad homs, right from the very first post.  Still not sure exactly what I've done to set you off.