NationStates Jolt Archive

I own a passport.
My parents have been to Italy five times, Spain thrice, Croatia, France, the UK, Greece, Montenegro, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Germany and are headed to Portugal this week.

...and my mom's fluent in Spanish, so traveling in Spain was no problem for her -- she could speak in Spanish or in English, however those she was speaking with preferred. She also knows that Portuguese is not Spanish, nor is Spanish interchangeable with Portuguese.


Sounds like you have some worldly parents. Then you come across a person like me who is born American that actually owns a home in another country for god sakes. Been to three dozen countries. Speaks 3 languages fluently and knows another one fairly well. Helped liberate a small kingdom to boot. Alas I am just an American.

Edit: If they are heading to Portugal I suggest having them go to a place called Condeixa, Coimbra. Has great Roman ruins if they are into that thing. The village is also built into a Roman ampitheater.

Another cool place I thought is the Virgin Mary tree at Fatima. There are also caves under that site that are interesting.

Portugal is a great country for sightseeing. Probably my favorite European country after Italy.

You don't know what trolling is, do you? I replied to your "evidence". I pointed out what it ACTUALLY shows, that I mentioned it earlier and that you tried to add to its credibility by posting multiple links all leading to the same study, a study where even the highest score among adults wasn't significantly higher than Americans (Sweden had a 9.6), where Americans scored almost tied with the British, relatively 8.6 and 8.5, and where Italian adults scored worse.

Here, read this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13710936&postcount=240

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5553/is_200212/ai_n21730056
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591413/
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/02/geog.test/
Thanks. But no pie? :(
42.

That thou hast her it is not all my grief,
And yet it may be said I loved her dearly;
That she hath thee is of my wailing chief,
A loss in love that touches me more nearly.
Loving offenders, thus I will excuse ye:
Thou dost love her because thou knowst I love her;
And for my sake even so doth she abuse me,
Suff'ring my friend for my sake to approve her.
If I lose thee, my loss is my love's gain,
And losing her, my friend hath found that loss;
Both find each other, and I lose both twain,
And both for my sake lay on me this cross.
But here's the joy; my friend and I are one;
Sweet flatt'ry! Then she loves but me alone.

Thanks. But no pie? :(

Sorry, nope. No pie.

And since I´m a troll, I need to rest. So, cheer up people, the Spanish Inquisition has abandoned the building.

Don´t try to fix what you did knowingly. You weren´t being sarcastic, you meant what you said and frankly, I don´t care.
Sarcasm is lost on Spaniards. As is Irony.

You´re the one in terrible need of enlightment, but do keep as you are. It only cements my own opinion about the vast majority of Americans.

Hmm... now I represent the vast majority of Americans. Yup, that's not gross generalization.


If you had read my statement correctly, and many people, including Americans read it, you would have understood what I meant. Knowledge is power, and in being able to carry a conversation is tantamount to having, at the very least, some knowledge of as many topics as you can. Not to be a know it all, no one likes that, but to be a competent human being.

Except you're being selective in what knowledge is power. I demonstrated this by asking you about other relatively trivial information. Even after being asked about it, you didn't choose to take the relatively easy task of looking up the answer. So much for that belief that knowledge is power, huh?



Geography belongs to the field of human knowledge, does it not? Being able to have general knowledge of geography is essential. Of course, is not that it´s asked of you to know the exact coordinates to Timbuktu or that you can locate a tiny village in Iceland. But knowing generally where the continents are without placing Iraq on French Polynesia is a plus if you already know that one belongs to the Middle East and the other is in the Pacific.

Do I explain myself or am I still a troll, oh Mighty One?

It belongs in the field of human knowledge along with music, computers, NBC training, chemistry, astrophysics, the mating habits of Mayans, etc.

You're doing better. Yes, I'm silly that on a debate forum, I draw people into debate. Are you upset that you made controversial statements and were asked to support or explain them?

Wow, you must be an illiterate twit then? Or perhaps it's not relevant to your life. Nah, it's much better to just put you in a box, illiterate twit.

Geography is relevant to everyone's life though Joc.

Geography is relevant to everyone's life though Joc.

I'm calling bull feces on that one.

I'm a very successful Old World Maps cartographer and I have no idea where I am half the time.

Here, read this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13710936&postcount=240

I did. And twice I've replied to your evidence and you've avoided it. And it is relevant, since you're using your rather sparse information to judge all Americans with. And, yes, I know, "not all".

Except, you are. Your reply to me was to pretend as if I fit into a stereotype. It was no different than me saying to a black person who gets upset that I said "all black people are violent" and calls me a racist that he proves me right. Since calling me a racist is neither violent nor does the stereotype hold based on one example.

Geography is relevant to everyone's life though Joc.

To an extent

Personally a lot less so then a whole list of other things that need learning

Guitars cost approximately as much to own as a globe. They're approximately as easy to spend time with as a globe. And they're no easier or more difficult to learn.

That is a matter of opinion. There is no possible way you can support that statement, especially since learning geography is required to pass any number of grades between 1st and college.

Hearing that there is fighting in Iraq tells you absolutely nothing about where it's located until you've already learned enough about geography to know what to look for.

Hearing that there is fighting in Iraq and that their neighbor, Iran, is possibly contributing, and that Russia is worried about a possible incursion tells you a great deal about where they are.

Not it requires support regardless. It can both be hypothetical and suggestive.

This is true. But I don't have to support it if I don't choose to support it. Which means it remains unsupported. Which means either I'm not supporting it because I don't actually believe it to be true and that I was being facetious and sarcastic, or that I enjoy frustrating you by refusing to support something.

"Hey, did you notice of the four news stories, all involved a black criminal?"
"Yep. Blacks are usually criminals."
"What? You can't support that."
"What do you mean? It's just a hypothetical."

You apparently have no idea what the word "hypothetical" means outside of a scientific context. If you look back, you'll notice that I used the qualifier "perhaps" which means it may or may not actually be true. Since I'm not supporting it, that would suggest that I don't actually believe it's true.

I know. As I said, most Americans restrict themselves to local travel and I offered support for that statement. The passports were only part of that.

Once again, national does not equal local.

You said that most people travel,

No I didn't.

that most people have access to globes,

No I didn't.

and most people hear about places on the news.

No i didn't.

You offered this as "support" for the claim that geography is more accessable, which is only relevant if the travel is to the places you're asking about, which in this thread is Tibet and Iraq.

A) You neglect to include the relevance of news reports on Tibet, which would compensate for a lack of travel to Tibet.
B) Obviously I was taking the argument outside of the context of this thread and using examples of how one could gather knowledge of places other than Tibet and Iraq to explain possible ways in which one could gather geographical information of Tibet and Iraq.
C) This thread is not about Tibet and Iraq. In fact, Iraq is not ever mentioned in the original post. This thread is about the OP's experiences of ignorant Americans, with Tibet as an example.

Careful, I'm drawing you into rational debate. You're actually providing support and defending your claims. You're raising that bar. You comfortable with that?

And it only took three pages of your trolling to do it.




I called you a troll.






That means I win.

Sarcasm is lost on Spaniards. As is Irony.



Hmm... now I represent the vast majority of Americans. Yup, that's not gross generalization.




Except you're being selective in what knowledge is power. I demonstrated this by asking you about other relatively trivial information. Even after being asked about it, you didn't choose to take the relatively easy task of looking up the answer. So much for that belief that knowledge is power, huh?





It belongs in the field of human knowledge along with music, computers, NBC training, chemistry, astrophysics, the mating habits of Mayans, etc.

You're doing better. Yes, I'm silly that on a debate forum, I draw people into debate. Are you upset that you made controversial statements and were asked to support or explain them?

Jacobia, irony isn´t lost on us. You weren´t being either of those. You wanted to be controversial.

Would you rather be counted in that high percentage that seems to know absolutely nothing?

No. I´m not being selective. You were being trivial.

Not at all. Me being upset stems from being labeled a troll when I don´t consider myself one. But fine, you´re presenting your points. You accused me on generalizing, but you´re doing the same thing. Moot, really. And also, we won´t come to a compromise no matter how long and hard the debate goes.

I'm calling bull feces on that one.

I'm a very successful Old World Maps cartographer and I have no idea where I am half the time.

Still haven't kicked the bottle eh?

I'm calling bull feces on that one.

I'm a very successful Old World Maps cartographer and I have no idea where I am half the time.

You don't think knowing where things are is important?
That is rather sad.

Still haven't kicked the bottle eh?

I don't know what you mean..?

My job is quite simple, draw a sort of misshapen landmass representing my home country. Add lots of sort of castle-esque buildings to this landmass. Draw well known rival lands as much smaller and shriveled, possibly including some crude rendering of their leader. Then, draw a massive ocean area, add in some sea serpent like creatures, and draw a mysterious landmass on the other side of the sea. Depict many wild creatures and chests of gold on said landmass. Sign my name on the bottom and wala!
You don't think knowing where things are is important?
That is rather sad.
Yes.

My job is quite simple, draw a sort of misshapen landmass representing my home country. Add lots of sort of castle-esque buildings to this landmass. Draw well known rival lands as much smaller and shriveled, possibly including some crude rendering of their leader. Then, draw a massive ocean area, add in some sea serpent like creatures, and draw a mysterious landmass on the other side of the sea. Depict many wild creatures and chests of gold on said landmass. Sign my name on the bottom and wala!

Yes.

You get paid to do this?

You get paid to do this?

Woops!

Meant to say "I'm calling bull feces on this one."
Referring of course to the following statement in that post.

Crisis diverted.

Sarcasm is lost on Spaniards. As is Irony.

Or has irony been lost on you?

The answer is yes. Yes it has.

That doesn't answer the question. Strawman and ad hominems are not the same thing. At all.

Actually, yes, they are. Straw man is a logical fallacy in which one argues against something other than what their opponent is arguing. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which one argues that a person is wrong based on personal qualities of their opponent which are not relevant to the argument at hand, which is a different argument than what the opponent is arguing, and therefore a form of straw man, albeit a more specific form.

More to the point, I was referring to both ad hominem and a separate straw man, which you managed to work together into some sort of horrible mutant super-fallacy.

It's also not controversial. It's not an attempt to distract from debate, but rather an attempt to draw you into it. It worked. I'm tricksy.

No, you drew me into a completely irrelevant argument.

Which makes you stupid, a troll, or attempting a straw man.

Either way.

Which is only an ad hominem if I was using calling her that to dismiss her argument, I wasn't.

I never said it was ad hominem.

Pedantic, but funny. Like I said, you can actually play with the big boys whenever you're ready. Until then, I'll rightly view your avoidance as your acceptance of your ability to play on our field.

Or maybe I'm so over your head that you are completely missing every point I'm making.

Here's a thought: did you ever think to ask what my nationality is?

This, I liked.

And I care what you think because...?

Now you're just playing to the crowd.

They like me better.

And, what do you know, that sounds just like the OP and my sarcastic demonstrations to show why broadbrushing is fallacious. Thanks for offering more examples.

You told me to keep trolling.

And what was that about sarcasm and irony being lost on Nanatsu?

Woops!

Meant to say "I'm calling bull feces on this one."
Referring of course to the following statement in that post.

Crisis diverted.

Damn, well sometimes humor escapes over the Internet. Now I get it. ;)

That is a matter of opinion. There is no possible way you can support that statement, especially since learning geography is required to pass any number of grades between 1st and college.

Not at the level you're discussing. And, the burden is on you. We are talking about learning two things. You're claiming one is easier to learn than the other. That's a positive claim. I'm claiming there is no reason to believe that one thing is easier to learn than another. You've not provided a reason otherwise.


Hearing that there is fighting in Iraq and that their neighbor, Iran, is possibly contributing, and that Russia is worried about a possible incursion tells you a great deal about where they are.

If you already know enough about geography to know where Iran and Russia are. I believe I already pointed this out.


This is true. But I don't have to support it if I don't choose to support it. Which means it remains unsupported. Which means either I'm not supporting it because I don't actually believe it to be true and that I was being facetious and sarcastic, or that I enjoy frustrating you by refusing to support something.

You don't have to support anything, but it has no relevance unless it's supported. Since this is a debate forum, generally, and for some silly reason, people expect you to, you know, provide rational support for claims.


You apparently have no idea what the word "hypothetical" means outside of a scientific context. If you look back, you'll notice that I used the qualifier "perhaps" which means it may or may not actually be true. Since I'm not supporting it, that would suggest that I don't actually believe it's true.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately the statement you made was suggestive whether it was hypothetical or not. Since you're not supporting nearly everything you say, that would suggest it's par and nothing else.


Once again, national does not equal local.

I didn't say national. We're talking about what I said. The passports suggest that most Americans don't travel the really long distance even those who have the means. I also provided support about means, to help you realize your statement was silly. You act as if possession of passports was my only support.


No I didn't.

There's a Monty Python skit that goes this way. The person pretending to argue there was making an equally rational argument.


A) You neglect to include the relevance of news reports on Tibet, which would compensate for a lack of travel to Tibet.
B) Obviously I was taking the argument outside of the context of this thread and using examples of how one could gather knowledge of places other than Tibet and Iraq to explain possible ways in which one could gather geographical information of Tibet and Iraq.
C) This thread is not about Tibet and Iraq. In fact, Iraq is not ever mentioned in the original post. This thread is about the OP's experiences of ignorant Americans, with Tibet as an example.

A) Which assumes that people are generally watching the news, and that this news on Tibet includes enough information to find it on a globe. It doesn't. In fact, I've had the news on the entire I've been in this debate and Tibet hasn't been mentioned. I can't think of the last time Tibet was mentioned on the news I watch.
B) I was looking at all of it, and all of it relied on inaccurate assumptions looked at together or seperately.
C) Yes, which she loosely supporting with various comments. I'm addressing them.


And it only took three pages of your trolling to do it.

The Princess Bride.


I called you a troll.

I know you did. Unfortunately, you don't appear to know the meaning.

And like all claims, it requires support.

That means I win.
If it were true, I'd actually accept that. Being caught engaging in such things is an equally valid way to end a discussion. If you could, you know, actually apply the word properly, I'd hand you your win on a platter.

Damn, well sometimes humor escapes over the Internet. Now I get it. ;)

Well, it is a convoluted series of tubes anyway.

Or has irony been lost on you?

The answer is yes. Yes it has.

Didn't really get the joke, did you? See, I DO realize you're being sarcastic. As you'll find below, I was using your sarcasm to help me demonstrate that I was also being sarcastic. It was very effective and appreciate the help however unwitting it was.



Actually, yes, they are. Straw man is a logical fallacy in which one argues against something other than what their opponent is arguing. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which one argues that a person is wrong based on personal qualities of their opponent which are not relevant to the argument at hand, which is a different argument than what the opponent is arguing, and therefore a form of straw man, albeit a more specific form.

More to the point, I was referring to both ad hominem and a separate straw man, which you managed to work together into some sort of horrible mutant super-fallacy.

You've not supported that I engaged in even one, let alone both. You have demonstrated that you're not sure how they're applied.



No, you drew me into a completely irrelevant argument.

Which makes you stupid, a troll, or attempting a straw man.

Either way.

It is relevant. Whether people's ignorance in one area is more important than another is relevant to the claims she's making about knowledge being power and how if you don't know certain things you're an "illiterate twit".

Again, I suspect you don't know the meaning of those words. It would be best to stop using them.


I never said it was ad hominem.

You said I used an ad hominem and then said I called her a troll. Do I need to explain how context works?


Or maybe I'm so over your head that you are completely missing every point I'm making.

Some people use sarcasm to make an argument. Some use it to avoid an argument. You do both. What did I miss? :p


Here's a thought: did you ever think to ask what my nationality is?

Why? It's not relevant.


And I care what you think because...?

I didn't realize this was high school.


They like me better.

Depends who they is.


You told me to keep trolling.

And what was that about sarcasm and irony being lost on Nanatsu?

I know. It was funny. It was also a good example. Perhaps you forgot, but Nana claimed I WASN'T being sarcastic. You've adequately proved my point that some people use sarcasm to make a point. Statements similar to your could be, for example, offered to show what trolling looks like.

Sarcasm + Internet = Endoftheworldasweknowit

Hint: the Spaniards I met where soldiers who were on a joint excercise with me in Norway.

In the interest of accuracy, I actually made out once with a Basque student name Nahia. She was scrumptuous. And my best friend's mother is Spanish. However, the generalization from that was much less funny or effective. :p

Sarcasm + Internet = Endoftheworldasweknowit

I hate sarcasm. And the internet. All they do is cause trouble. Neither one of them ever entertain me.

(Yes, I know that example is particularly obvious, but I want to make sure everyone gets it.)

Not at the level you're discussing. And, the burden is on you. We are talking about learning two things. You're claiming one is easier to learn than the other. That's a positive claim. I'm claiming there is no reason to believe that one thing is easier to learn than another. You've not provided a reason otherwise.

I never said it was easier. I said more readily accessible. Those are two different things.

Learn 2 read.

If you already know enough about geography to know where Iran and Russia are. I believe I already pointed this out.

For God's sake, what don't you understand about the word "example"?

You don't have to support anything, but it has no relevance unless it's supported.

Then I suppose that means it's irrelevant, doesn't it? Which wasn't my point at all. Nope. Not in the least.

Since this is a debate forum, generally, and for some silly reason, people expect you to, you know, provide rational support for claims.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately the statement you made was suggestive whether it was hypothetical or not.

I never said it wasn't suggestive.

Since you're not supporting nearly everything you say, that would suggest it's par and nothing else.

You're actually providing support and defending your claims.

Fail.

I didn't say national. We're talking about what I said. The passports suggest that most Americans don't travel the really long distance even those who have the means.

No, that suggests that most Americans don't travel internationally. Which does not explain why any American would be ignorant of their own national geography.

I also provided support about means, to help you realize your statement was silly. You act as if possession of passports was my only support.

I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Which, for the record, is your failing in this instance. It isn't my responsibility to decipher logical reasoning out of your irrelevant rambling.

There's a Monty Python skit that goes this way. The person pretending to argue there was making an equally rational argument.

Haven't seen it.

Incidentally, I actually didn't say any one of those things. If you'd like to prove me wrong, feel free to try. In lieu of this attempt, trying to discredit my perfectly valid defense of my own argument with an irrelevant reference to Monty Python is not a valid argumentative strategy.

A) Which assumes that people are generally watching the news, and that this news on Tibet includes enough information to find it on a globe. It doesn't. In fact, I've had the news on the entire I've been in this debate and Tibet hasn't been mentioned. I can't think of the last time Tibet was mentioned on the news I watch.

That one would be supporting a movement in Tibet suggests that one is aware of the current events in Tibet, which would require that one pay attention to some source of news, be it TV, internet, newspaper, or even hearsay.

B) I was looking at all of it, and all of it relied on inaccurate assumptions looked at together or seperately.

Obviously you weren't looking at all of it, since my posts aren't specifically about Tibet and Iraq. Which means you were looking at part of it, which makes your assessment of this thread inaccurate, which I addressed before.

C) Yes, which she loosely supporting with various comments. I'm addressing them.

And I was addressing your inaccurate assessment of the subject of this thread.

The Princess Bride.

ZOMG TROLL!

I know you did. Unfortunately, you don't appear to know the meaning.

Support for this statement?

And like all claims, it requires support.

You never supported calling Nanatsu a troll.

If it were true, I'd actually accept that. Being caught engaging in such things is an equally valid way to end a discussion. If you could, you know, actually apply the word properly, I'd hand you your win on a platter.

I'll be expecting a silver platter.

Those are the best platters.

Also, your sentence structure is horrible. Learn 2 syntax.

Didn't really get the joke, did you? See, I DO realize you're being sarcastic. As you'll find below, I was using your sarcasm to help me demonstrate that I was also being sarcastic. It was very effective and appreciate the help however unwitting it was.

Joke's on you. I wasn't being sarcastic, there. There actually is a tremendous amount of irony being completely lost on you.

You've not supported that I engaged in even one, let alone both. You have demonstrated that you're not sure how they're applied.

Actually, that whole previous paragraph there demonstrates that I know exactly how they are applied and that it is in fact you who is ignorant of how those particular logical fallacies work.

So actually I've done both. You apparently didn't seem to notice.

It is relevant.

How?

Whether people's ignorance in one area is more important than another is relevant to the claims she's making about knowledge being power and how if you don't know certain things you're an "illiterate twit".

You've yet to prove her point wrong: some knowledge is demonstrably more important than others. Disprove that.

Again, I suspect you don't know the meaning of those words. It would be best to stop using them.

INCONCEIVABLE!

You said I used an ad hominem and then said I called her a troll. Do I need to explain how context works?

No, I said you used ad hominem and called her a troll. I never once said these two utterances were at all related. In fact, my accusation of ad hominem and my questioning of your accusation of troll are completely unrelated, and were two distinct and separate parts of a post. That you leapt to a false conclusion from two clearly unrelated statements is your own fault.

Some people use sarcasm to make an argument. Some use it to avoid an argument. You do both. What did I miss? :p

The point.

Why? It's not relevant.

Why wouldn't it be?

I didn't realize this was high school.

Of course not, it's NSG. It's much worse than high school.

Depends who they is.

Everyone important.

I know. It was funny. It was also a good example. Perhaps you forgot, but Nana claimed I WASN'T being sarcastic. You've adequately proved my point that some people use sarcasm to make a point. Statements similar to your could be, for example, offered to show what trolling looks like.

You've proven nothing, as I wasn't making a point at all.

Since you're not supporting nearly everything you say, that would suggest it's par and nothing else.

You're actually providing support and defending your claims.
I was pointing to an instance where I baited you into supporting your claims. You do know that can happen and "nearly" would still apply, yes?

As to the rest, you keep dividing a post and ignoring context. Here, I'll show you.
It is relevant.

How?

Whether people's ignorance in one area is more important than another is relevant to the claims she's making about knowledge being power and how if you don't know certain things you're an "illiterate twit".

You seperate out the answer to your own question. You're mildly witty, and you show hints of insight, so I suspect you can follow a string of conversation from one very short sentence to the next. If you'd like I can stop using punctuation if a period makes you divorce ideas.

You've yet to prove her point wrong: some knowledge is demonstrably more important than others. Disprove that.

Can you name the fallacy here?

Jacobia, irony isn´t lost on us. You weren´t being either of those. You wanted to be controversial.

I chose controversial examples that were similar to yours in order to demonstrate what trolling is. Incidentally, your cohort chose very similar examples to also show what trolling is and was also being sarcastic. You guys should really plan this stuff out. One of you saying I can't have been sarcastic while the other is offering a practically identical post that was sarcastic doesn't help your respective arguments.

(If you don't know, that was the debate equivalent of ducking while one of you punches the other.)

Would you rather be counted in that high percentage that seems to know absolutely nothing?

Considering how you gauge it. Yes.



No. I´m not being selective. You were being trivial.

No more trivial than the location of Tibet. Meanwhile, you chose to remain unable to answer the question. That betrays whether or not you ACTUALLY hold that knowledge equals power.

As your friend points out, not all knowledge is equal. What he fails to note is that their value is relative. I'd suggest that if you were living on a farm, the power of knowing how to milk a cow is much greater than knowing where Tibet is on a map. In my job, you aren't fit to sit next to me if you don't know the keystroke I asked you. Knowledge IS power. That doesn't that each bit of it is powerful.


Not at all. Me being upset stems from being labeled a troll when I don´t consider myself one. But fine, you´re presenting your points. You accused me on generalizing, but you´re doing the same thing. Moot, really. And also, we won´t come to a compromise no matter how long and hard the debate goes.

I just apply words based on their definition. If you'd prefer not to be seen as a troll, when you see a post that has several arguments against your OP, instead of insulting and avoiding, try replying to them. I don't label people trolls easily. Usually, it requires an active attempt to avoid rational debate.

My generalization was a joke. I don't actually believe any of those things. Are you seriously claiming that I believe that all Spaniards carry guns and wear camouflage? Hint: the Spaniards I met where soldiers who were on a joint excercise with me in Norway.

I was pointing to an instance where I baited you into supporting your claims. You do know that can happen and "nearly" would still apply, yes?

But what you said was suggestive!

As to the rest, you keep dividing a post and ignoring context. Here, I'll show you.

And you combine completely separate, distinct, and unrelated parts of a post. Here, I'll show you:

It is relevant.

This refers to this:

No, you drew me into a completely irrelevant argument.

Which refers to this:

Now. This argument has nothing to do with whether or not Americans are ignorant.

Which refers to this:

Support that I used a strawman.

Which is to say, the argument as to whether or not you used a straw man is a straw man, as it is irrelevant to the point of the thread, which is that Americans are ignorant.

Which clearly has nothing to do with this:

Whether people's ignorance in one area is more important than another is relevant to the claims she's making about knowledge being power and how if you don't know certain things you're an "illiterate twit".

So. You take what I say and put it in the context of a completely different argument I am making so that it would appear that I am using fallacious logic, when fact my arguments are logically sound when followed correctly and in the correct context.

Once again, learn 2 syntax. Your understanding of the English language is lackluster at best.

You seperate out the answer to your own question. You're mildly witty, and you show hints of insight, so I suspect you can follow a string of conversation from one very short sentence to the next. If you'd like I can stop using punctuation if a period makes you divorce ideas.

And you misuse sarcasm and deliberately misunderstand every point that I make. If you'd like I can stop making sense.

Can you name the fallacy here?

I believe I asked you to.

But what you said was suggestive!

I notice when you don't understand arguments you respond with nonsense and hope people laugh.


Which is to say, the argument as to whether or not you used a straw man is a straw man, as it is irrelevant to the point of the thread, which is that Americans are ignorant.

Whether or not an argument is a strawman or not is relevant to any argument. You don't really understand debate, do you? There are sites. Want some links?


So. You take what I say and put it in the context of a completely different argument I am making so that it would appear that I am using fallacious logic, when fact my arguments are logically sound when followed correctly and in the correct context.

It is relevant. Whether people's ignorance in one area is more important than another is relevant to the claims she's making about knowledge being power and how if you don't know certain things you're an "illiterate twit".

Again, there is the statement before you divided it up. In your last post you said that some knowledge was more important than others. The strawman isn't the only thing you debated about. I quite effectively drew you into a debate and about issues that are relevant to the topic, unless you're claiming she never supported her OP with various statements about the knowledge of Americans.

By the way, a strawman isn't an argument that is irrelevant. IT's an argument she never made. And arguments aren't the same as conclusions. She made several arguments. You keep acting like anything that isn't contesting the conclusion is a strawman.

Argument 1
and
Argument 2
thus
Conclusion X

I can attack either argument 1, argument 2 or whether conclusion X naturally follows. This concludes your debate lesson.

She supported her conclusion with various sweeping generalizations. I attacked them.
Once again, learn 2 syntax. Your understanding of the English language is lackluster at best.

If you're not aware that syntax can be used all sorts of ways in rhetoric and debate, I can't help you. It's a benefit to sound conversational. English is a living language. Sometimes I also put my dinner fork above my plate and the food still makes it in my mouth.

When someone starts complaining what they think are syntax mistakes, it's generally an admission they're over their head. You should spend more time on making your posts comprehensible and less time editing mine.


And you misuse sarcasm and deliberately misunderstand every point that I make. If you'd like I can stop making sense.

I'd like you to start. Most of your answers don't speak to the point. And since this has been troublesome for you in the past, MOST doesn't mean ALL.


I believe I asked you to.
No, you didn't. However, I'll help you. It's called a shifting the burden of proof. You made a positive claim and challenged me to DISPROVE it. Regardless, I happen to agree with the claim you made, unfortunately it's misapplied. Which has more value to a rancher, the methods for birthing a sheep or the location of Tibet? Nana called him an "illiterate twit" for not knowing the latter in her fallacious generalization.

Well, I really hate to say this, but some people are really really, geographically confused. I've done this many, many times, even since the 90's.
Americans are strange people, I was at a Free Tibet protest in SF recently, and I tried a trick I saw on TV, I asked them where Tibet was, the results were hilarious. They pointed to Mongolia, Ukraine, Korea, and Indonesia.
Pretty Ironic, that they don't even know where tibet is!
I've noticed that Americans really need to brush up on their geography skills, and I really think the time is now, so we don't look like Protesting Ignoramuses.

One would think that, in a developed country, during the Information Age, everyone could have access to some basical informations, like en.wikipedia.org/tibet...

Anyway, just not to be my usual antiamerican self: after the 2001 and the 2006 elections in Italy, some MPs were interviewed by a satyrical TV programme (Le Iene iirc). I give here questions (correct answer) range of actual answers:

When Italy was unified? (1861) 1500, 1789, 1848, 1930
When ended WW2 in Italy? (25th april 1945, it's national holiday to boot) 1918, 1940, 1944, 1950

That's MPs, not exactly the man in the street... :rolleyes:

A newly elected senator even mixed the palace of the Senato (Palazzo Madama) with the palace of the Camera dei Deputati (Palazzo Montecitorio). WTF:headbang: and these people actually make laws and give confidence to cabinets.

There are two Penguin Islands: one is just off Perth, Australia, the other is in the South Shetland Islands, off Antarctica.

Broken Hill is a town in New South Wales, Australia.

Semo La is a mountain pass in Tibet. It leads to Mount Kailash.

Next --

1. Yaren

2. Nagorno-Karabakh

3. Vorkuta

The Penguin Island I was thinking of is Ile des Pingouins (sorry for spelling, I know no French) somewhere in Kerguelen archipelago, but I'll count this as passed (wiki sez there are even more Penguin Islands).

Next:

1. No idea

2. South of Causasus Mountains, piece of land over which Armenia and Azerbaijan fought each other. It lies on territory of one of them, but is populated by the other ethnicity, so a natural casus belli.

3. Russia, Siberia, Central to East Siberia I'd guess. Gulags made it famous. (almost - it's rather to the north)

My tries: Chersky Mountain Range, Kolyma.

Tha Dalaï considers relocating to France anyway ...

Or perhaps stereotypes are based in some truth, and thus Americans are generally ignorant of many things, geography included, and Spaniards also generally come off as rude to others.

I always thought that it was because the only contact between Europeans and US citizens, is as tourists (and occasionally GIs I suppose) in Europe.

Tourists are of course not reknowned for their sense of local geography outside of their locale.

Could be wrong about that though.


See, rational arguments don't rely on fallacies. Have you heard of fallacies or is debate another thing you don't count in your everything that people are supposed to know a bit about?

In my experience Spanish debate can be summed up as "he(r) who shouts loudest wins."

I'm sure this isn't the case, but it is my experience.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5553/is_200212/ai_n21730056
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591413/
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/02/geog.test/

Do you have any evidence regarding Spain that we could compare it against?

I wish someone would tell Madonna to go back to America.

I wish someone would tell Madonna to go back to America.

Why? We don't want her either.

I wish someone would tell Madonna to go back to America.

HEY every year we thank you for taking her off our hands.
Don't be sending her back, just scurry her along to elsewhere.

HEY every year we thank you for taking her off our hands.
Don't be sending her back, just scurry her along to elsewhere.

Don't send her to Spain though, please. We'll apologize for Julio and Enrique Iglesias, Penélope Cruz and Charo.:p

Don't send her to Spain though, please. We'll apologize for Julio and Enrique Iglesias, Penélope Cruz and Charo.:p

I think ti is time for Madonna in Spain.

Also, I used latin in my post. That means I win.

It's true. It was part of the LatinKicksAss accords of 1918.

I wish someone would tell Madonna to go back to America.

Give her back? You can't give her back, you took her, a deal's a deal.

Someone probably posted this before. I didn't read all 20 pages...
actually I didn't ready any:D

Anyway, I present you Miss South Carolina:

Link1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII)

Link2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAJUMYGgfZA)

Enjoy:)

I notice when you don't understand arguments you respond with nonsense and hope people laugh.

I notice when you don't understand arguments you call people trolls and use other words the meaning of which you do not fully understand.

Whether or not an argument is a strawman or not is relevant to any argument.

Not when the straw man in question had nothing to do with the original argument.

You don't really understand debate, do you? There are sites. Want some links?

ZOMG ad hominem!

Again, there is the statement before you divided it up. In your last post you said that some knowledge was more important than others. The strawman isn't the only thing you debated about. I quite effectively drew you into a debate and about issues that are relevant to the topic, unless you're claiming she never supported her OP with various statements about the knowledge of Americans.

I don't believe I have ever claimed anything in the last 10 pages about whether or not Americans are ignorant or not.

By the way, a strawman isn't an argument that is irrelevant. IT's an argument she never made.

Which is, my necessity, irrelevant to the argument being made.

And arguments aren't the same as conclusions.

Conclusions are part of an argument.

She made several arguments. You keep acting like anything that isn't contesting the conclusion is a strawman.

Contesting which conclusion?

Argument 1
and
Argument 2
thus
Conclusion X

Learn 2 formal logic.

I can attack either argument 1, argument 2 or whether conclusion X naturally follows. This concludes your debate lesson.

Learn 2 teach.

She supported her conclusion with various sweeping generalizations. I attacked them.

By attacking her.

If you're not aware that syntax can be used all sorts of ways in rhetoric and debate, I can't help you. It's a benefit to sound conversational. English is a living language. Sometimes I also put my dinner fork above my plate and the food still makes it in my mouth.

Bad analogy.
English syntax is not as flexible as other languages.
"Living language" is not an excuse for a poor understanding of English grammar.
Using syntax dynamically in your argument only works when you are clear and precise. You're not.
Sound conversational?

When someone starts complaining what they think are syntax mistakes, it's generally an admission they're over their head. You should spend more time on making your posts comprehensible and less time editing mine.

Irony.

I'd like you to start. Most of your answers don't speak to the point.

Or you're missing the point.

And since this has been troublesome for you in the past, MOST doesn't mean ALL.

What does this have to do with the previous point?

No, you didn't.

You've yet to prove her point wrong: some knowledge is demonstrably more important than others. Disprove that.

I didn't?

However, I'll help you. It's called a shifting the burden of proof. You made a positive claim and challenged me to DISPROVE it.

ZOMG you told me the burden of proof is on me. Guess that means you would win the argument, except I already used Latin in a post, which means I already won.

Regardless, I happen to agree with the claim you made, unfortunately it's misapplied.

Which claim, now?

Which has more value to a rancher, the methods for birthing a sheep or the location of Tibet? Nana called him an "illiterate twit" for not knowing the latter in her fallacious generalization.

Which is more important for a person actively engaged in protesting current events in Tibet who is a random person on the street and unlikely to be a shepherd? Learn 2 context.

Someone probably posted this before. I didn't read all 20 pages...
actually I didn't ready any:D

Anyway, I present you Miss South Carolina:

Link1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII)

Link2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAJUMYGgfZA)

Enjoy:)

It is very embarrassing how dumb she is.

It is very embarrassing how dumb she is.

Well...only for her...

But hey, look at the bright side, maybe she's not embarrassed either!
After all, that would require some cognitive capacity:rolleyes:

Well...only for her...

But hey, look at the bright side, maybe she's not embarrassed either!
After all, that would require some cognitive capacity:rolleyes:

Good thing she is hot.

Good thing she is hot.
Yup that is a comfort:)

Speaking of [non]americans with imperfect geography, how many of you know that Bosnia has about a mile of seashore?
Bosnia has NO seashore.

You're talking about Herzegovina.

Or probably more accurately about Bosnia & Herzegovina. :p