NationStates Jolt Archive

Can you post a link to a post on this general forum to at least one UNEDITED post in which you admit to being wrong in a serious debate?

This forum has no serious debates. It has flame fests.

So no.

What's the point of entering into a debate if you admit you're wrong? The purpose is to prove your point, not retract it.

I'll admit to losing by Goodwin's law. But I'm not sure if that counts, because I wasn't aware at the time that a Nazi reference would negate about three hours worth of serious discussion.

Can you post a link to a post on this general forum to at least one UNEDITED post in which you admit to being wrong in a serious debate?I admitted I was wrong about the Yarmulka thing in the "Headscarves" thread, but I can't be bothered to go hunting for it in that...

I admit I was wrong for suggesting there cant be any edvince for God without the bible. Thats why I deleted that post:p

Eh, I don't edit my wrong posts, but assure you, just look around and I'm sure I'll be wrong by the standards of your reality somewhere. I consider NS light discussion anyhow; its called "General" for a reason.

What's the point of entering into a debate if you admit you're wrong? The purpose is to prove your point, not retract it.

What's the point in debating if you aren't willing to admit your errors?

Well, there was that time in one of Straughn's Global Warming threads...and the wings thing, but I'm not sure that counts as serious.

Eh, I don't edit my wrong posts, but assure you, just look around and I'm sure I'll be wrong by the standards of your reality somewhere. I consider NS light discussion anyhow; its called "General" for a reason.

But the question is not whether I think you're wrong. It's a question of you own ability to admit you're wrong. If you can't do that, what's the point?

Sure. But I can't find it.

Jane Fonda falsehood. Canuck proved me wrong and I admitted it and deleted the posts as to not continue the error......

I will admit I am wrong when I am shown to be.....

Is it enough to admit being wrong even if you are not?

I have admitted errors many times. Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10706189&postcount=48)is the most recent that I recall.


EDIT: Admittedly it is not the most gracious admission of error. B0zzy was annoying me too much for that. But I did admit I was wrong -- as I have done on other occassions.

What's the point in debating if you aren't willing to admit your errors?

Should I answer that with another question?

Sure. But I can't find it.

Jane Fonda falsehood. Canuck proved me wrong and I admitted it and deleted the posts as to not continue the error......

I will admit I am wrong when I am shown to be.....
Same with me--I've admitted to being mistaken on something about Joseph Wilson, as I recall, but I can't find the post. It was a nuance thing--I said that Joseph Wilson said that Iraq wasn't seeking uranium from Niger when what he really said was that Iraq couldn't have gotten uranium from Niger and that the evidence being used was obviously faked. It's a small thing, but I was wrong (as was the person I was debating, I believe), but I admitted it and moved on.

It's a question of you own ability to admit you're wrong.
Ask I V Stalin. I didn't directly admit, "Oh - I'm wrong, I'm so wrong - and you, I V Stalin, are so correct that the rabbit is sitting on shiney shit (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=477710)."

If that's what you consider "debate". Its not a question of one's own ability to admit one is wrong, it is a question of changing your views based on the facts as they come. I can admit I'm wrong, but if I don't change, what good has it done?

The thing about the obesity in the British Food thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=478127&page=3) was me just pulling something out of my arse and posting. Didn't think about how it could be interpreted and whatnot. I didn't even think it through, but in NS fasion, I proceeded to back up my statement with pseudo-logic from personal expeirence, and ended up settling the issue ( until now ) while pretty much saying nothing than "sort of BS". :p

I don't think I ever admitted I was wrong, perhaps because I'm always right ;) . I did concede to BAAWA that he was never going to change my mind, nor was I ever going to change his. See, once again I'm right ;)
Go me!

To be honest, I can't remember, I've been off Nationstates for so long. (Remember me - Liskeinland?)

Of course, it is entirely possible that one couldn't admit to being wrong, simply because of one's intellectual perfection.

To be honest, I can't remember, I've been off Nationstates for so long. (Remember me - Liskeinland?)

Of course, it is entirely possible that one couldn't admit to being wrong, simply because of one's intellectual perfection.
I remember you, vaguely. What do I win?!

What do I win?!
A hyperlink (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a335/christopher1/nothing.jpg).

A http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a335/christopher1/nothing.jpg

Well how d'ya do Chris?

yep, most recently entered a debate about which i didn't really know an aweful lot and based my argument on an erroneous assumption. i still stand by most of my argument in the thread but my misunderstanding coloured people's reactions to my posts so i just gave up and then the discussion ended anyway. here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10776714&postcount=17)

Well how d'ya do Chris?
Eh, its called Google (http://images.google.fi/images?hl=sv&q=nothing&sa=N&tab=wi). :p

Well, apart from my most recent example of going overboard, in the Headscarves on TV thread...
...

So we actually had a Muslim woman on this forum, who lives in the Middle East, and would be an invaluable asset to the debates about all this...and you people started bullying her?

WTF?! I would've expected as much from K-P, but not from the others. :(
People bullied that Tweet tweet person too.

Are you suggesting there should be a different standard for muslims?

(In re bullying that is).
Okay, okay. Maybe "bullying" was too harsh a word.

I appologise.
But that doesn't count, because it wasn't really a debate.

There is no shame in getting beaten by the best (and I deserved it):
Thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431145
Leadup:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9228764&postcount=17
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9229088&postcount=22
BLAMMO!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9229539&postcount=33
I will however pick up a point about marginal utility. This argument is always made on the side of the government in proposing progressive taxation. However marginal utility is only ever considered in the revenue side of things, not in the service provision. Why is this? Because when you start to try to apply marginal utility to health care, or education, then people suddenly see how wrong the whole concept is.

Let us look at what happens if services are provided on the same basis that this progressive taxation is calculatred on, marginal utility.

Education. This child is not too bright. He is not mentally disabled or anything like that, just not the smartest kid that has passed through the school. Well that means that he is not going to be able to make full use of the education potential available here, so it would be a waste to provide it. We should just teach him to read, write and do some basic sums. That way we can dedicate the time of our specialist literature teachers to his cousin who is a child genius. If we do this then we take away from the first kid something he really doesn't need and give it to someone who can get much higher utility out of it. We are sure that Mr and Mrs Einstein would agree that young Albert is better off being prepared to enter a trade, he doesn't show any academic talent after all.

Health. Hey Joe. We've got a big RTA comming in, various teenagers that will need beds. Go kick some of the geriatrics out. If they die we lose less than if these kids that wrapped themselves round a telegraph poll street racing die.

See - marginal utility is a form of discrimination, it is a way of saying that this has less value here than it will have there. It is the antithesis of equality. It is easy to say that one dollar means less to someone with 200,000 than to someone with 50. However this is not the case. That dollar still buys the same quantity of food, the same medicine, the same book. It has exactly the same value, regardless of who it belongs to.

If you want to provide a safety net, so that people don't starve, so that everyone has a suposed 'dignified life' (if living on government charity can ever be dignified that is) then make your arguments for wealth redistribution, but do not argue for marginal utility unless you are willing to use the same marginal theory of measures when it comes to providing services.
*Eats Hat*:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9229690&postcount=35
Big Grin:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9229846&postcount=36
Ends involvement in this thread as gracefully as possible:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9229865&postcount=37

Can you post a link to a post on this general forum to at least one UNEDITED post in which you admit to being wrong in a serious debate?
I have changed my mind due to arguments presented on NS forums, but I can't think of when and where so, unfortunately i can't give u a link.

I can't say that I have, but mostly because I only post when I am sure about something. If I am unsure, I read the thread and keep my notions to myself until I am sure.

So if any thread has changed my mind, it wouldn't show up IN the thread, because I wouldn't have posted in the first place.

Ask I V Stalin. I didn't directly admit, "Oh - I'm wrong, I'm so wrong - and you, I V Stalin, are so correct that the rabbit is sitting on shiney shit (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=477710)."

If that's what you consider "debate". Its not a question of one's own ability to admit one is wrong, it is a question of changing your views based on the facts as they come. I can admit I'm wrong, but if I don't change, what good has it done?
Damn right I consider that 'debate'. :p One of the better threads I've taken part in on this forum.

I was arguing about military vs citizens in the US some time ago, it got on to Iraq, i stated most opposition fighters were from outside the country. Someone posted to a wikipedia article proving me wrong. I admitted i was wrong, and gave them a cookie (i think)

I said in a recent thread that the language "truths that are self-evident" was in the U.S. Constitution; someone pointed out my error and I admitted I was wrong.

If I cared to go back 8 months or so to when I was a commie, I could cite any of those posts, I guess. I don't have the energy to find those, though.

I have admitted errors many times. Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10706189&postcount=48)is the most recent that I recall.


EDIT: Admittedly it is not the most gracious admission of error. B0zzy was annoying me too much for that. But I did admit I was wrong -- as I have done on other occassions.

You just made my day!

Don;t worry - you can count on me to help you see the flaws in your arguments regularly. Soon enough you will grow to appreciate it rather than resent it. But then it will be no fun for me!