Founding Fathers Debate -- Need Help

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-05-09 01:28pm

I don't know how long you've been in TNZ, but he's good when he wants to be. I think the whole "Founding Fathers" debacle made him inclined to stop trying, so now there's the mock-logic.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 01:43pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I don't know how long you've been in TNZ, but he's good when he wants to be. I think the whole "Founding Fathers" debacle made him inclined to stop trying, so now there's the mock-logic.

Either that, or he's the type of person who resorts to fallacious reasoning if he can't win an argument honestly, because he would rather fuck with people than slay one of his sacred cows.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-09 01:47pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I don't know how long you've been in TNZ, but he's good when he wants to be. I think the whole "Founding Fathers" debacle made him inclined to stop trying, so now there's the mock-logic.

I've never seen Rucker try to make a point, unless you count him coming to General Chang's defense over at TrollKingdom. What he's doing now almost looks like he's making an effort -- but he's still committing fallacies right and left.

When we view Rucker's demonstrated debating skills logically, we have a decision to make:

1: Rucker is the ultimate debater, as you claim. Rucker only looks to be a lousy debater because he just isn't interested in showing us how great he is.

2: Rucker appears to be a lousy debater because he is, in fact, a lousy debater.

I wonder which one makes more sense?

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-09 01:55pm

For your amusement, General Chang is still trying to win the Founding Fathers debate he claims to have no time for.

This time, he's talking about how the John Adams quote containing the phrase "carloads of trumpery..." is bogus. First he claimed that it was bogus becuase "cars" didn't exist back then.

Now he's claiming that... well, see for yourself. I can barely stop laughing.

Quote:

Originally posted by DSK8975
Okay, you looked up "carload" and came up with:

Unfortunately, there's nothing in that definition that specifies what kind of car is being described, so your date is meaningless. Dishonest of you? Well, that's not a surprise, now is it?

Let's address the actual point, why don't we?

www.dictionary.com wrote:6 entries found for car.
car ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kär)
n.
An automobile.

Did automobiles exists when Adams used the word, "carloads"? If you have even the most minimal snippet of honesty, you must admit that, no, they did not.

Did railroad cars exist yet?

Pretty sure he wasn't talking about elevators, either.

Not very likely he was talking about an airship.

Hey, look! "Car" is also shorthand for "Carriage" or "Cart"! Has somebody said that before in this debate? I think so! I think it was me! I think you lose!

If these waves of stupidity could be surfed I'd be looking around for Jeff Spicoli!

1. Where do you get the insane notion that I ever said Adams was refering to an automobile? My Lord you just REEK of massive moronism. I SAID the quote is BOGUS because NO ONE in 1800 used the expression "carload" ESPECIALLY the upper class. So, one of the Lords of Logic uses the Straw Man argument? I'm crushed - really.

2. The dictionary says, as I quoted, the first USEAGE, NOT the "first recognition in a dictionary." Duh.

3. What KIND of car is irrelevant since it's a dictionaries buisness to convey ALL extant meanings.

4. I never implicitly or specificly denied that "car" could be short for carriage, but let me ask you, oh Fount of All Wisdom, if one ones to cry out in exasperation at the massive amounts of somethng which bothers him, will he use "carriage-loads" instead of "wagon loads" or "shiploads" or "mountains" or any of a thousand other words wich might refer to something, uh, idunno, LARGE?

5. You still haven't provided any proof it was ever used as you claimed in the time frame in question. Even the dictionary says that it's first useage was 28 years after Adams died, so you are left contending that he was the only one that modern scholarship can find who used the word in that manner. It can refer to carriages or carts all it wants to - 28 YEARS later! Just because "car" refered to carriages in the 16th or the 3rd century is not LOGICALY superior to what the dictionary says about the use of carLOADS.

(Misrepresentation of Facts: Since car was a short form of carriage in the 18th century then "carloads" must have been in common use. I believe that's #6. And 2 more of your vaunted rules bite the dust in this post. Hmmmmm.)

6. It's Bogus. It's BOGUS. It's B-O-G-U-S. You've been had, duped, fooled, decived. Deal with it.

7. More of this winning and losing buisness. Really, could you get out of bed in the morning if anyone convinced you that you lost a BBS "debate"?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-05-09 02:05pm

It could be short for "cartload", but its an odd usage even in that case. Not a laughable argument as far as I can see.

My advice? Take yourself less seriously. Its just the internet.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-09 02:21pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:It could be short for "cartload", but its an odd usage even in that case. Not a laughable argument as far as I can see.

What's laughable is General Chang's claim first that the quote was bogus because there were no "cars" when the quote was made, and then that the dictionary didn't record the specific word "carloads" until later.

Of course, he still fails to back up his implicit claim that the word "carloads" wasn't used before it was recorded in a dictionary.

My advice? Take yourself less seriously. Its just the internet.

You know, that whole "It's just the internet" mantra is getting really old. I'm hearing over there concerning "visionrazor's" acts of misrepresentation, and now I'm hearing it about a debate that a TK kid is losing.

Is that your version of, "Yeah, whateva..." or something?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-05-09 02:26pm

Just a little point....a word has to be in use before it gets put into a dictionary.....they dont make up words specially for the dictionary, they record those that are in use......so.....there's no major inconsitency between the two.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-09 02:34pm

And that's just basic reasoning, which is what makes it so sad to behold General Willy's assertion that, since the dictionary says it was first recorded in 1800, nobody used it before 1800.

General Willy? Yep, that's old GC, as listed at IsnAnchorDesk.com. Southern Baptist Preacher (If I hadn't told ya, I bet ya still would'a guessed) and amateur DJ (layin' down da mad beatz in the name of da Lizzord, yo!). Too much fun.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 02:38pm

This "GC" charlatan publicly claimed that there's something WRONG with insisting upon the proper use of logic in a debate

Virtually all of his arguments consist of attacking information he doesn't like, rather than attempting to synthesize a consistent theory to simultaneously explain the evidence brought forth by both sides.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-05-09 02:53pm

All I'm saying is, don't stress out on things that you can't change or don't matter to you. Will winning this debate improve your life or make you feel better by besting people you consider inferior?

You don't like them, and don't want to associate with them. Edit your website, prove who you are, end then put this all to bed. I don't care what people in these online BBS think of me, because I know what people I care about think of me.

Fraud is a big thing, and you should handle that. But walk away from the debate.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-09 03:02pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:All I'm saying is, don't stress out on things that you can't change or don't matter to you. Will winning this debate improve your life or make you feel better by besting people you consider inferior?

What matters to me is besting people who have asserted that my position is inferior without the balls or the brains to back up their assertion.

You don't like them, and don't want to associate with them. Edit your website, prove who you are, end then put this all to bed. I don't care what people in these online BBS think of me, because I know what people I care about think of me.

Actually, the web-site has been edited. Funny thing is, one of them claiming to be a site admin offered to put an end to the whole "visionrazor" fiasco if I could name for her a modification on the web site, and then have that modification made to the web site. That's been done. Unfortunately, it turns out the individual I made that agreement with is either a throwaway account created by another TK regular, or is simply refusing to honor the agreement. In retrospect, this isn't at all surprising.

Fraud is a big thing, and you should handle that. But walk away from the debate.

Why should I walk away from a debate that the opposition has turned into a personal crusade against me? Especially in light of the fact that unless their stupidity is made patently obvious, they'll claim that they won because I left?

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-09 03:55pm

More General Chang stupidity! Wheeeee!

Originally posted by GenC
Yes!
Let's LOOK, shall we, at what the Lord of Logic had to say:
{Please note the letters (a) which refer to end notes}

Quote:

Darth Wong wrote:
That's an awful lot of names. Some of them are obviously more prominent than others. Why not limit it to the prominent names (a) and then ask for quotes showing their private beliefs(b), since churches tend to count people as members even if they haven't seen them in ages? (c)

Did you know that there are several churches out there which count ME as a member?(d) I never believed, and I only attended to accompany my wife, but that was enough to put me on the list. And once you get on the list, they never take you off, unless you go there and make a big fuss asking them to take you off (and who's going to bother doing that, since it doesn't cost you anything to be on their list?)

Quote:

Darth Wong wrote:
If I were famous, this fucktard(e) would probably say that I am Christian(f) because I've gone to church and am listed on several church registries.

(a) In other words, let's take the famous names and GENERALIZE (SDN Rule of Logic # 7) there beliefs onto the entire group....

(b) and lets take selected quotes out of context and generalize it to their public intentions. (also #7) By this logic those folks so said Bill Clinton's private morality in lying about sex logically insured he'd lie about government policy right?

(c) False Analogy (#4): "Churches today pack the rols with non-practicing members so the same must have been true in 1800"

(d) False Analogy repeated as above, and generalization ("since churches count me as a member and I'm not a believer then churches 200+ years ago also counted the Founders as members though they were not believers")

(e) ad hominim. duh.

(f) Strawman. No one is arguing Wong is a Christian.

Sooo...
SIX abuses of the SDNROL in TWO paragraphs.

Ain't logic a pip?
:bigass:

It sure is, Rev'r'n'd Maynard! HEEE!!!

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-05-09 04:43pm

(a) In other words, let's take the famous names and GENERALIZE (SDN Rule of Logic # 7) there beliefs onto the entire group....

Who said anything about generalizing? Using an obscure name on the Declaration of independance won't mean jack to your average John Doe but John Hancock's name WILL.

(b) and lets take selected quotes out of context and generalize it to their public intentions. (also #7) By this logic those folks so said Bill Clinton's private morality in lying about sex logically insured he'd lie about government policy right?

Isn't this the standard excuse of Fundies when ever someone points out all the killings in the Bible? He gives no evidence what-so-ever of taking quotes out of context, just screams that they must be because they don't say what he likes.

(c) False Analogy (#4): "Churches today pack the rols with non-practicing members so the same must have been true in 1800"

And how much have these cherches changed since then. Oh thats right. They don't actually burn non-believers now. There was MORE incentive then to have your name on a church roll then than now

(d) False Analogy repeated as above, and generalization ("since churches count me as a member and I'm not a believer then churches 200+ years ago also counted the Founders as members though they were not believers")

See above as well.

(e) ad hominim. duh.

Since the argument is actually dealt with, this is NOT an ad hominem. The guy can't even spell it right. Its no surprise he doesn't actually know what it is.

(f) Strawman. No one is arguing Wong is a Christian.

For once the accused fallacy is present! The "rebuttal" of Mikes post IS in fact a strawman. Mike never claimed this idiot was saying Mike is a Christian. Mike said IF he was famous this idiot would PROBABLY be claiming he was.

SIX abuses of the SDNROL in TWO paragraphs.

Yep. This idiot sure does know how to commit logical fallacies. I'm surprised he even knows how to count past five. Oh wait. He doesn't. He committed six fallacies in six paragraphs. My mistake.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 04:46pm

It's quite sad to see GC try to use logic when he clearly does not understand it. It's a bit like watching a monkey try to operate a computer.

Funny how he won't debate these points here, where they were originally raised, against me, with whom he's supposedly trying to debate.

Can you say "GC is a pussy?" Sure you can.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 05:11pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Just a little point....a word has to be in use before it gets put into a dictionary.....they dont make up words specially for the dictionary, they record those that are in use......so.....there's no major inconsitency between the two.

But the thing is according to Merriam Webster www.m-w.com

Main Entry: car·load
Pronunciation: 'kär-'lOd, -"lOd
Function: noun
Date: 1854
1 : a load that fills a car
2 : the minimum number of tons required for shipping at carload rates

and then on their help page under Explanatory Notes: Dates it says:

"This is the date of the earliest recorded use in English, as far as it could be determined, of the sense which the date precedes."

http://www.m-w.com/dates.htm

As this is the only usage for carload, the first time it was found to be used was 1854.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 05:16pm

These kinds of nitpicks are tiresome. We are talking about a Constitution which does not contain the word "God" anywhere, which makes no mention of the Bible whatsoever, and whose only reference to religion is to guarantee that all of them are treated equally.

Contrast this to the prevalent Christian opinion of the era, and you will see how little influence the churches had on the foundation of the nation.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-09 05:23pm

Ancalagon the dictionary is talking about recorded usages, ie those that are published in well known sources (webster couldnt get his hands on all sources, some dont exist anymore even from that time period), not slang terminology that was used in private letters.

also note that Websters is not the ultimate authority on the english language by any strech the most well respected well researched dictionary is the Oxford English Dictionary, can someone who has access to the OED find its information on the origin on Carloads seeing as how that is what it is known best for, having the best info on word origins of any source.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 05:31pm

If we're going to nitpick about "carloads", I would remind everyone that ALL words start as common usage, BEFORE they are officially recognized. A word must, in fact, achieve widespread, consistent use BEFORE any dictionary will recognize its existence.

Most words start as slang, and will only be recognized as official words after a long gestation period.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-09 06:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:If we're going to nitpick about "carloads", I would remind everyone that ALL words start as common usage, BEFORE they are officially recognized. A word must, in fact, achieve widespread, consistent use BEFORE any dictionary will recognize its existence.

Most words start as slang, and will only be recognized as official words after a long gestation period.

<TK Whiny Bitch(tm)> Ooooh! The logic! It hurrrrrrts!<TK Whiny Bitch(tm)>

I've pointed this out the them a couple of times already -- it's no use. Apparently, since they can't address this point, they've elected to ignore it.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 07:04pm

Darth Wong wrote:If we're going to nitpick about "carloads", I would remind everyone that ALL words start as common usage, BEFORE they are officially recognized. A word must, in fact, achieve widespread, consistent use BEFORE any dictionary will recognize its existence.

Most words start as slang, and will only be recognized as official words after a long gestation period.

If you would bother to read the 'nitpick' you'd notice that it says:

"This is the date of the earliest recorded use in English, as far as it could be determined, of the sense which the date precedes"

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 07:09pm

Darth Wong wrote:These kinds of nitpicks are tiresome. We are talking about a Constitution which does not contain the word "God" anywhere, which makes no mention of the Bible whatsoever, and whose only reference to religion is to guarantee that all of them are treated equally.

Contrast this to the prevalent Christian opinion of the era, and you will see how little influence the churches had on the foundation of the nation.

I thought we were debating over about the religious leanings of the founders? When did placing God in the Constitution come into this? And when did the influence of the Church come into this? I know i haven't and i haven't seen someone talk about what an influence the organized religions of the time had on the founders, so i really don't see the point of your responce. Feel free to clarify.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 07:10pm

NapoleonGH wrote:Ancalagon the dictionary is talking about recorded usages, ie those that are published in well known sources (webster couldnt get his hands on all sources, some dont exist anymore even from that time period), not slang terminology that was used in private letters.

also note that Websters is not the ultimate authority on the english language by any strech the most well respected well researched dictionary is the Oxford English Dictionary, can someone who has access to the OED find its information on the origin on Carloads seeing as how that is what it is known best for, having the best info on word origins of any source.

It says first recorded use they found... I searched for an Oxford here at home (no longer at school) but all we have are three different Webster ones.... maybe someone else can find it?

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 07:21pm

And sorry to 'nitpick' about another one of those quotes but maybe it should be read in context

[Adams is telling Jefferson about an arguement between Joseph Cleverly and Lemuel Bryant]:

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not ft to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

John Adams, Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1856), Vol. X, p. 254

Obviously whoever posted those original quotes hasn't learned about selective quoteing.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-09 07:23pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:These kinds of nitpicks are tiresome. We are talking about a Constitution which does not contain the word "God" anywhere, which makes no mention of the Bible whatsoever, and whose only reference to religion is to guarantee that all of them are treated equally.

Contrast this to the prevalent Christian opinion of the era, and you will see how little influence the churches had on the foundation of the nation.
I thought we were debating over about the religious leanings of the founders? When did placing God in the Constitution come into this? And when did the influence of the Church come into this? I know i haven't and i haven't seen someone talk about what an influence the organized religions of the time had on the founders, so i really don't see the point of your responce. Feel free to clarify.

You're full of shit, Ancalagon. You've been following the mirror version of this debate at TrollKingdom, in which Rucker has more than once brought up the "contemporaneous theology of the day". Don't even try to bullshit here.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-09 07:26pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:These kinds of nitpicks are tiresome. We are talking about a Constitution which does not contain the word "God" anywhere, which makes no mention of the Bible whatsoever, and whose only reference to religion is to guarantee that all of them are treated equally.

Contrast this to the prevalent Christian opinion of the era, and you will see how little influence the churches had on the foundation of the nation.
I thought we were debating over about the religious leanings of the founders? When did placing God in the Constitution come into this? And when did the influence of the Church come into this? I know i haven't and i haven't seen someone talk about what an influence the organized religions of the time had on the founders, so i really don't see the point of your responce. Feel free to clarify.
You're full of shit, Ancalagon. You've been following the mirror version of this debate at TrollKingdom, in which Rucker has more than once brought up the "contemporaneous theology of the day". Don't even try to bullshit here.

how so? The founding fathers were rejecting the prevalent view of the church and its role at the time... no one has ever denied this?!?!?! How is this bullshit?