Occupy Wall Street

[addictionary]

I don't think PKM avoided this thread because of hypocracy. Because even if he has an opposing view against the ones who occupied WS, he would still be in this thread bashing the ones that he did not agree with with the methods he used to do in any other debate.

I think his stand in the Bundy event is basically based on his search and desire for a society that has stronger bonds. He might felt like people should stick to examples like this and take a stand against corruptness regardless of the strength of the opposition.

I agree with notion of the legitimacy in resisting the officials when the society has concrete evidence and clear examples to validate the corruption of the office. I think the state and the government is for the people. Not the opposite. But that is not the reality of the governments. So people need to be awake against their exploitation and always be formed, organized to stand strong against their intimidations.

On the other hand, I agree with fishonjazz and frank and the others that agree with'em on that sole case. If the soil was the dude's I'd agree with him. But there are always more than what has been broadcasted and because of that, I can't throw PKM's suspicion to rubbish.

But in any means, taking a stand every once in a while against the power is the best thing a society that wants to stay free can do.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

It is not a back peddle. He still claims you did! He might be wrong but that is not a back peddle. That would imply that he tried to distance himslef from what he said and he has not.

While you are in a teaching mood go learn the menaing of backpeddle.

When someone is wrong and refuses to acknowledge it (even though it would take 5 minutes to review the words + somebody has pointed out their interpretive mis-step), and then fires back a recalcitrant post re-claiming his error.... well, then, that's a backpeddle. Call it a double-down if you'd like.

But, in this case, whatever you call it, you also have to call it wrong.

 

[Stoked]

When someone is wrong and refuses to acknowledge it (even though it would take 5 minutes to review the words + somebody has pointed out their interpretive mis-step), and then fires back a recalcitrant post re-claiming his error.... well, then, that's a backpeddle. Call it a double-down if you'd like.

But, in this case, whatever you call it, you also have to call it wrong.

Hahaha. For someone so quick to point out when you think others are wrong it surprises me that you refuse to admit when you are.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Hahaha. For someone so quick to point out when you think others are wrong it surprises me that you refuse to admit when you are.

my god. Do me one favor. If you do it, I promise to logout for one month. Deal?

 

[Stoked]

my god. Do me one favor. If you do it, I promise to logout for one month. Deal?

No, I see no reason you have to leave.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

And, PKM is on here trying to prove points all the time. Sometimes you have to evaluate a person's credibility before you consider the points they make. Are they really who they say they are?

His absence in this thread is ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE that it's dishonest for him to paint himself a centrist (an identity that he uses as a wedge in almost every politically charged conversation in which I've seen him participate).

When someone is wrong and refuses to acknowledge it (even though it would take 5 minutes to review the words + somebody has pointed out their interpretive mis-step), and then fires back a recalcitrant post re-claiming his error.... well, then, that's a backpeddle. Call it a double-down if you'd like.

But, in this case, whatever you call it, you also have to call it wrong.

In what Phd world you live in do you not believe saying it's dishonest of someone to do something to be calling that person a liar.
I say you called him a liar.
I showed you where you called him a liar.

You claim you can call someone dishonest in their actions/words and yet not be calling them a liar?

You don't understand what a backpedal is let alone know how to spell it, nor do you understand how words seem to work in the English language.
That's as much as I can gather from these posts.

 

[Stoked]

When someone is wrong and refuses to acknowledge it (even though it would take 5 minutes to review the words + somebody has pointed out their interpretive mis-step), and then fires back a recalcitrant post re-claiming his error.... well, then, that's a backpeddle. Call it a double-down if you'd like.

But, in this case, whatever you call it, you also have to call it wrong.

It is not a back pedal. He still claims you did! He might be wrong but that is not a backpedal. That would imply that he tried to distance himself or retract from what he said and he has not.

While you are in a teaching mood try teaching yourself the meaning of backpedal.

back-ped·al

1. to retreat from or reverse one's previous stand on any matter; shift ground: to back-pedal after severe criticism.

In what Phd world you live in do you not believe saying it's dishonest of someone to do something to be calling that person a liar.
I say you called him a liar.
I showed you where you called him a liar.

You claim you can call someone dishonest in their actions/words and yet not be calling them a liar?

You don't understand what a backpedal is let alone know how to spell it, nor do you understand how words seem to work in the English language.
That's as much as I can gather from these posts.

Oh wow, look at all that backpedaling I bolded...

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

In what Phd world you live in do you not believe saying it's dishonest of someone to do something to be calling that person a liar.
I say you called him a liar.
I showed you where you called him a liar.

You claim you can call someone dishonest in their actions/words and yet not be calling them a liar?

You don't understand what a backpedal is let alone know how to spell it, nor do you understand how words seem to work in the English language.
That's as much as I can gather from these posts.

lol. It all comes down to his intention. I think lying requires the intent to deceive. I don't think he does this.

I think you can be dishonest without intending to be; the picture one can have of himself can be wrong. If he uses that picture of himself to gain credibility, then the act functions like dishonesty (but there is still a lack of intent to deceive).

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

and, lol at my spelling. my bad.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

lol. It all comes down to his intention. I think lying requires the intent to deceive. I don't think he does this.

I think you can be dishonest without intending to be; the picture one can have of himself can be wrong.

That doesn't even make sense because honesty is based almost entirely on intention.
If intent to deceive was there it could be classified as dishonest.
If no intent to deceive was there it would just be flawed or wrong, but not dishonest.

Whatever.. keep spinning. I'm done with this lameness.

Sorry to all for feeding the troll.

 

[Hantlers]

I probably meant to say that you're miserable. Let me check...

I'm pretty happy actually.

I rather enjoy my life.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

That doesn't even make sense because honesty is based almost entirely on intention.
If intent to deceive was there it could be classified as dishonest.
If no intent to deceive was there it would just be flawed or wrong, but not dishonest.

Whatever.. keep spinning. I'm done with this lameness.

Sorry to all for feeding the troll.

when did we agree to use your dictionary?

btw, congrats on trolling through the point I was making... now we're nowhere near it.