The Debates (country, single, effects, quote, youtube)

sleepy jack · 10-24-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

The Federal Government could change that. Still my point is, it's a major issue discussed during every election, but it doesn't change.

It's still a state by state law issue, not a national issue. So it was pointless of you to bring up in the first place.

Quote:

I addressed this in a previous post. Again my taxes have gone up slightly with each election both state and federal.

Um, that's not exactly true. Local/state taxes have gone up in the last election yes but only because of George W. Bush's reckless federal tax cuts.

Quote:

Your assumption of my sentiment is so far from accurate or explicable. All Wars are awful, but so far in my life America has been the good guys every time and I have no experience leading military campaigns so I'll leave it to the men who do to run them.

We've been the good guys every time? Even when we force democracy onto unwilling nations?

Quote:

The national debt has increased with every president the past 50 years. Everyone promises the opposite including these two.

That's a flat out lie. It's been going down (with some very brief ups) since Truman and didn't start really rising again until Bush/Reagan. Then it started steadying and going down with Clinton only to be brought up by George W. Bush.

Quote:

I don't believe Obama cares about it. Nothing other then his words suggest he does care. Plus he is powerless (if he did care) against the lobbyists like his VP's Son. Money talks, every president thinks they'll get us off foriegn oil and our dependency only increases.

Beau Biden is a lobbyist? I wasn't aware, I wonder why he's in Iraq right now.

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABqE0...9 Jimmy Carter

That was 30 years ago. We've used more oil from OPEC nations every year since. Today over 75% of our oil is purchased from OPEC nations.

That still doesn't change the fact democrats give much more of a thought to Alternative Energy sources than republicans do. McCain's policy to rape the continental shelf and drill in Alaska won't work. Why? Because the oil in Alaska won't even last us a year it's not a longterm solution at all. Our dependency on oil in general keeps going up and up and that's the problem. Senator Obama gives much more thought to this than McCain does. Drill baby drill is a horrible solution and nothing more than a pipe dream.

Quote:

Where does the money come from? Taxes. And unless it's spent wisely who cares. The real solution is to avoid standardization and allow schools more private funding. But you can't tax people that way.

I never said it didn't come from taxes but god forbid Obama take money from all the Paris Hilton's of America and help fund our underfunded schools.

Quote:

Legal immigration. Illegal immigration waters down our tangible economy and creates xenophobia and racism.

You can't really measure an issue like that. It does create that kind of politically climate but as to whether it's bad or not for our economy in the long run it's hard to gauge.

WendyCal · 10-24-2008, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trauma

No I didn't.

No, that means nothing.

How is something being the opposite of something else give way to "therefore..."?

Okay.

You said:

i don't disagree with you. That's two negatives and =
i do not not agree with you.

Using math, you can now cancel the two negatives, and, VOILA!

You get:
i do agree with you.

Sorry, but that is how logic works, and pretty much puts paid to the rest of what you had to say...

And i know you don't 'support' me!

i was jerking your chain!

WendyCal · 10-24-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

That still doesn't change the fact democrats give much more of a thought to Alternative Energy sources than republicans do.

Ooo, i think all of us who aren't financially involved with big oil have been wondering about this ever since the energy crunch in the '80's.

Seriously. Why has NO ONE been able to build an inexpensive, clean-machine vehicle in, what, THIRTY YEARS???

Please.

~~The Unfan~~ · 10-24-2008, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WendyCal

You said:

i don't disagree with you. That's two negatives and =
i do not not agree with you.

Using math, you can now cancel the two negatives, and, VOILA!

You get:
i do agree with you.

The double negative rule doesn't cancel prefixes as a prefix doesn't change the definitive phrasing of a word, it makes a new word in its place. "Disagree" isn't the "negative" of agree.

To parse his sentence another way what he said would mean "I am not convinced that you're wrong." which is in no way a double negative and doesn't necessarily mean he agrees.

~~The Unfan~~ · 10-24-2008, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WendyCal

Ooo, i think all of us who aren't financially involved with big oil have been wondering about this ever since the energy crunch in the '80's.

Seriously. Why has NO ONE been able to build an inexpensive, clean-machine vehicle in, what, THIRTY YEARS???

Please.

Solar taxi? It exists.

WendyCal · 10-24-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan

The double negative rule doesn't cancel prefixes as a prefix doesn't change the definitive phrasing of a word, it makes a new word in its place. "Disagree" isn't the "negative" of agree.

To parse his sentence another way what he said would mean "I am not convinced that you're wrong." which is in no way a double negative and doesn't necessarily mean he agrees.

AAAAAAAAA ~ look it up. i think i found it in Intro to Logic, Chap 1, but i also read the prefaces to textbooks, so it might have been there.

And even if it sounds like bragging, i aced Logic in college, and on the little test the free uni gives you before you start the course.

sleepy jack · 10-24-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WendyCal

AAAAAAAAA ~ look it up. i think i found it in Intro to Logic, Chap 1, but i also read the prefaces to textbooks, so it might have been there.

And even if it sounds like bragging, i aced Logic in college, and on the little test the free uni gives you before you start the course.

This is a grammatical argument, not a logic argument. I don't know what kind of textbook on logic they gave you but if its teaching you the rules of the English language perhaps it was a basic grammar book.

WendyCal · 10-24-2008, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan

Solar taxi? It exists.

That's what i'm talking about!

They 'exist,'

but no one has picked up the ball and run with the idea, to the extent that they exist all over the place because we knew this was coming way back when.

And then you've got to ask yourself,

Why?

The best i can figure is that big oil paid to quash it, and the auto makers went along with them. That's just a guess, though.

WendyCal · 10-24-2008, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan

The double negative rule doesn't cancel prefixes as a prefix doesn't change the definitive phrasing of a word, it makes a new word in its place. "Disagree" isn't the "negative" of agree.

To parse his sentence another way what he said would mean "I am not convinced that you're wrong." which is in no way a double negative and doesn't necessarily mean he agrees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carnegie mellon free online uni

Okay, so when ought we to accept the conclusion of an argument as being true? Well, there are two issues, one is logical in nature, whereas the other is not. First, the premises of the argument should be true. Now, the truth of a particular statement is something that logic, in general, cannot determine. Of course, there are some statements that are true (or false) just by virtue of their logical form (don't worry, we will come back to this point later), and such statements are the notable exception to this general guideline. Second, and this is where logic comes into play, in addition to being true, the premises of the argument should actually constitute evidence in favor of the truth of the conclusion. Another way of putting this is that the steps leading from premises to conclusion should be truth-preserving—logical steps taken from true premises should lead to a true conclusion.

"Why do we need both of these criteria?" you might be wondering. Think of a table. If you have a design for a table that includes a table top and some number of legs, then any engineer could tell you by looking at the design whether the legs would be able to hold up the table top. Of course, the table legs won't do a very good job of holding up the table top if you never even get around to building all of them. A good argument is just like a good table—it has the right design, and just like a good table actually has all of its legs, the premises of a good argument are all actually true.

https://oli.web.cmu.edu/jcourse/work...&view=frameset

Quick translation: Turn all negative statements into true statements. i can continue to quote, or you can follow the link.

dac · 10-24-2008, 11:47 PM

Grammar wars? Really guys? Grow up already.

10-24-2008, 11:47 PM	#370 (permalink)
dac MB's Biggest Fanboy Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land Posts: 2,852	Grammar wars? Really guys? Grow up already. __________________