JetBlue Latest and Greatest
11-08-2017, 05:53 AM
#4643
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,880
Originally Posted by Southerner
Okay. So I tried to take this discussion private because, seriously, no one gives a flying fook.
Here is what I said in the private message. Verbatim. "You choose to take the most literal, least generous interpretation of everything anyone says." Which, you know, isn't quite the same thing as what you just said above. It's similar. I mean, the word "literal" is in there.
When you're engaged in a philosophical discussion with someone, one way of arguing that is a type of logical fallacy and is a breakdown of the discussion is when you take the most literal interpretation of someone's words, give them the least generous interpretation, and then beat them over the head with that absurd interpretation. This is a form of the "straw man" fallacy.
So, I said what I said, which you've quoted several times so I will spare everyone the pleasure. From that you took this, which is very clearly NOT what I intended or meant:
That, sir, is a straw man. It very clearly isn't what I meant, and it's the least generous (putting words into my mouth) interpretation of what I said. And I've tried to clarify, ad nauseum. I'm tired of it. Everyone on this site is tired of it, and I'm done with you. If you choose to keep engaging, then I'll just block you and be done with it.
So yeah, your reading comprehension sucks, you're intellectually dishonest, and engage in logical fallacies to "win" arguments. Bravo.
Screw beer, I need a whiskey.
Here is what I said in the private message. Verbatim. "You choose to take the most literal, least generous interpretation of everything anyone says." Which, you know, isn't quite the same thing as what you just said above. It's similar. I mean, the word "literal" is in there.
When you're engaged in a philosophical discussion with someone, one way of arguing that is a type of logical fallacy and is a breakdown of the discussion is when you take the most literal interpretation of someone's words, give them the least generous interpretation, and then beat them over the head with that absurd interpretation. This is a form of the "straw man" fallacy.
So, I said what I said, which you've quoted several times so I will spare everyone the pleasure. From that you took this, which is very clearly NOT what I intended or meant:
That, sir, is a straw man. It very clearly isn't what I meant, and it's the least generous (putting words into my mouth) interpretation of what I said. And I've tried to clarify, ad nauseum. I'm tired of it. Everyone on this site is tired of it, and I'm done with you. If you choose to keep engaging, then I'll just block you and be done with it.
So yeah, your reading comprehension sucks, you're intellectually dishonest, and engage in logical fallacies to "win" arguments. Bravo.
Screw beer, I need a whiskey.
You've said my reading comprehension is poor and criticised me for interpreting your words "literally" and giving you the "least generous" interpretation.
Let's put that to the test.
I asked you a simple question (condensed to it's essence): Do you think people are susceptible to positive confirmation bias?
You answered:
"Not if you have a rational and objective look. I don’t have a positive outlook. I look for both the negative and the positive, and call it like I see it. You ALWAYS call it negative. Always.
Some here are the opposite of you, for sure and yes, confirmation bias works for them too."
Lets unpack that answer and see if I made the terrible mistake of taking you "literally" and giving you the "least generous" interpretation.
"Not *(not means NO)* [if you have a rational and objective look (I will call this phrase condition 1ALPHA)]."
"I *(I means you (Southerner))* don’t have a positive outlook."
"I *(I means you again)* [look for both the negative and the positive, and call it like I see it (this phrase is where you tell me YOU meet the conditions of 1ALPHA, and are therefore "NOT" susceptible to positive confirmation bias)]."
"You ALWAYS call it negative. Always (Yes, I know)."
"Some ("Some" Means others, not you) here are the opposite of you, for sure and yes, confirmation bias works for them ("them", again not YOU) too."
So, you criticised my reading comprehension because I took your words literally. Taking you literally at your word is reading comprehension 101. You say what you mean and mean what you say, do you not?
As for giving you the "least generous" interpretation, as I wordsmith YOUR WORDS (in context), there is simply no other way to interpret your initial response to my very simple question. As I have clearly shown above.
Now you've told us that you are better than "most" of us at evaluating reality! You couldn't have said "some" or "many"! You had to say "most"! Un-real!
Well here it is Bubba, your reading comprehension is feces. Your ability to write precisely is feces. Your ability to self-evaluate is feces. And your ability to evaluate objectively JBs current standing among our peers is feces.
And yes, I know I am negative on JB and I know I am a jerk to people here who always paint a rosy picture of our current standing in this industry. So unlike you, I am aware of my biases.
11-08-2017, 06:36 AM
#4645
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,880
Originally Posted by WhiteHammer
Lol.
Last time I used bad lang on this forum I was threatened by a moderator to be excommunicated. However; that's probably because it was directed at United and it was a moderator that works there. Thanks T38United or UPTUnited or whatever the (blank) didn't swear, your name was.
Last time I used bad lang on this forum I was threatened by a moderator to be excommunicated. However; that's probably because it was directed at United and it was a moderator that works there. Thanks T38United or UPTUnited or whatever the (blank) didn't swear, your name was.
Well of course I fought back against the unprovoked attacks and was suspended for a while by a Frontier employed mod.
11-08-2017, 07:29 AM
#4646
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
Well, that is a whole lot of bull-cockee there Bubba.
You've said my reading comprehension is poor and criticised me for interpreting your words "literally" and giving you the "least generous" interpretation.
Let's put that to the test.
I asked you a simple question (condensed to it's essence): Do you think people are susceptible to positive confirmation bias?
You answered:
"Not if you have a rational and objective look. I don’t have a positive outlook. I look for both the negative and the positive, and call it like I see it. You ALWAYS call it negative. Always.
Some here are the opposite of you, for sure and yes, confirmation bias works for them too."
Lets unpack that answer and see if I made the terrible mistake of taking you "literally" and giving you the "least generous" interpretation.
"Not *(not means NO)* [if you have a rational and objective look (I will call this phrase condition 1ALPHA)]."
"I *(I means you (Southerner))* don’t have a positive outlook."
"I *(I means you again)* [look for both the negative and the positive, and call it like I see it (this phrase is where you tell me YOU meet the conditions of 1ALPHA, and are therefore "NOT" susceptible to positive confirmation bias)]."
"You ALWAYS call it negative. Always (Yes, I know)."
"Some ("Some" Means others, not you) here are the opposite of you, for sure and yes, confirmation bias works for them ("them", again not YOU) too."
So, you criticised my reading comprehension because I took your words literally. Taking you literally at your word is reading comprehension 101. You say what you mean and mean what you say, do you not?
As for giving you the "least generous" interpretation, as I wordsmith YOUR WORDS (in context), there is simply no other way to interpret your initial response to my very simple question. As I have clearly shown above.
Now you've told us that you are better than "most" of us at evaluating reality! You couldn't have said "some" or "many"! You had to say "most"! Un-real!
Well here it is Bubba, your reading comprehension is feces. Your ability to write precisely is feces. Your ability to self-evaluate is feces. And your ability to evaluate objectively JBs current standing among our peers is feces.
And yes, I know I am negative on JB and I know I am a jerk to people here who always paint a rosy picture of our current standing in this industry. So unlike you, I am aware of my biases.
You've said my reading comprehension is poor and criticised me for interpreting your words "literally" and giving you the "least generous" interpretation.
Let's put that to the test.
I asked you a simple question (condensed to it's essence): Do you think people are susceptible to positive confirmation bias?
You answered:
"Not if you have a rational and objective look. I don’t have a positive outlook. I look for both the negative and the positive, and call it like I see it. You ALWAYS call it negative. Always.
Some here are the opposite of you, for sure and yes, confirmation bias works for them too."
Lets unpack that answer and see if I made the terrible mistake of taking you "literally" and giving you the "least generous" interpretation.
"Not *(not means NO)* [if you have a rational and objective look (I will call this phrase condition 1ALPHA)]."
"I *(I means you (Southerner))* don’t have a positive outlook."
"I *(I means you again)* [look for both the negative and the positive, and call it like I see it (this phrase is where you tell me YOU meet the conditions of 1ALPHA, and are therefore "NOT" susceptible to positive confirmation bias)]."
"You ALWAYS call it negative. Always (Yes, I know)."
"Some ("Some" Means others, not you) here are the opposite of you, for sure and yes, confirmation bias works for them ("them", again not YOU) too."
So, you criticised my reading comprehension because I took your words literally. Taking you literally at your word is reading comprehension 101. You say what you mean and mean what you say, do you not?
As for giving you the "least generous" interpretation, as I wordsmith YOUR WORDS (in context), there is simply no other way to interpret your initial response to my very simple question. As I have clearly shown above.
Now you've told us that you are better than "most" of us at evaluating reality! You couldn't have said "some" or "many"! You had to say "most"! Un-real!
Well here it is Bubba, your reading comprehension is feces. Your ability to write precisely is feces. Your ability to self-evaluate is feces. And your ability to evaluate objectively JBs current standing among our peers is feces.
And yes, I know I am negative on JB and I know I am a jerk to people here who always paint a rosy picture of our current standing in this industry. So unlike you, I am aware of my biases.
No one cares. And neither do I. To quote the Bible, “Go forth, and multiply.”
If you have a problem comprehending that, oh well.
11-08-2017, 07:35 AM
#4648
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,880
Originally Posted by Southerner
No one cares. And neither do I. To quote the Bible, “Go forth, and multiply.”
If you have a problem comprehending that, oh well.
If you have a problem comprehending that, oh well.
Now maybe if you could stop telling us about your superior evaluation skills (superior to "most" of us anyways) we could spare everyone the back and forth.
11-08-2017, 07:41 AM
#4650
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
As shown above, I haven't had any problems with reading comprehension. Literally.
Now maybe if you could stop telling us about your superior evaluation skills (superior to "most" of us anyways) we could spare everyone the back and forth.
Now maybe if you could stop telling us about your superior evaluation skills (superior to "most" of us anyways) we could spare everyone the back and forth.
It’s quite funny, watching you freak out.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
