Venezuela - Example of How Socialism Leads to Dictatorship?

[pErvinalia]

He (and you) were actually right about the logic of the image being indistinguishable between different meanings. It doesn't, however, change your strange interpretation of my post to be suggesting that it reflects the reality of what was going on when the photo was taken. It's an image. As I said, by necessity it is an "appearance". It can't be anything more.

Which, of course, means that your declaration that she "is" repulsed is not accurate.

She IS showing repulsion in the photo (under one interpretation).

LOL, you didn't say "showing" -- you said "is repulsed by him." That's different.

Oh ffs, you guys are pathetic. I'm referring to an image, ffs. Not the broader reality. You are so desperate to see it otherwise you have descended to ridiculous semantic arguments.

And you went on to make it a personal issue, when you declared that those who did not agree with what you now call "one interpretation" were the conservative socially deficient people who lack empathy for others....

This has got absolutely nothing to do with your strawman. Unless you are trying to erect a new strawman?

At most she appears, to you, based on your interpretation of the image, to be repulsed. And, you seem to have acknowledged that the image is amenable to different interpretations; therefore, suggesting that those who do not see something "wrong" with it are socially lacking or lacking in empathy would also be wrong.

You want to attempt to logically back that up? It can be amenable to different interpretations AND someone who can't recognise the revulsion undertones can be lacking in empathy. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Therefore your assertion that it "would be wrong" is illogical.

They can be, but you declared that anyone who doesn't see something "wrong" with the photo which "says it all" is, in fact, one of those empathy lacking perople....

I didn't say "anyone". I was talking about a particular conservative and suggested an explanation for that based on the fact that conservatives tend to lack empathy compared to non-conservatives. Stop erecting strawmen.

Hermit apparently agrees with that, despite not knowing who said it. Whether it can show something else, or whether it is an accurate reflection of what was actually happening in real life when the photo was taken is irrelevant. This is just yet another case of 42 erecting a strawman to give himself something to argue about.

Nonsense. No straw man has been erected. You wrote what you wrote, and I've quoted you above.

Yes, I referred to the image, not the broader reality that the image was a snapshot of. That's why your rebuttal that brought in the broader reality angle was a straw man. Dude, you get repeatedly accused by multiple people of making strawman arguments, and you are never able to admit it. Take a step back and consider the likelihood that all those people all those times are 100% wrong and you are 100% right. It's improbable. You're a genius, obviously, but you're not infallible.

You said she was repulsed. You said the image "said it all" about Trump. You said if someone did not see what was "wrong" in that image, then they lacked empathy and were socially inept (words to that effect).

It's not a straw man, because even referring to the image and saying "the image shows she is repulsed by him" (and if you don't agree with that you lack empathy, etc.), there is plenty of room in the image to interpret it as the woman smiling at him, turned slightly to partially face him, and sitting primly/properly and appearing happy and comfortable. That's not a straw man. That's disagreement.

That wasn't your argument (that I am referring to as the strawman). Strawmanning yourself isn't going to get you anywhere. Your argument was that because an image is only a snapshot in time we can't tell definitively what was going on in the reality around that photograph. Being a photographer, I of course agree with that. But it's a strawman as my point had nothing to do with the reality around that image. It was about interpretation of that image.

Anyone posting often on this forum is accused, repeatedly, of raising strawman arguments. Declaring an opponents argument a strawman is a very common accusation,

Perhaps you should do a search and see how often it happens to you compared to anyone else.

[pErvinalia]

It's funny. -- http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/not%20infrequently

yes, it's funny how the meanings in your own link align with how I intended to use the phrase.

eg. intermittently, at times, every now and then

Read it closer -- "Not infrequently" and right below it, it says "as in frequently." Like, https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... frequently "not infrequently: frequently; often."

And you forgot "again and again, many times, often, regularly, time and again, usually, oft, oftentimes, ofttimes," lol and I like this one "as a rule." Also, "habitually," "many a time", "much" lol.

Man, you are pathologically compelled to never admit you are wrong. YOUR OWN LINK (as has happened repeatedly in the past) supports me. Turns of phrase can have multiple meanings. YOUR OWN LINK SHOWS THAT.

[pErvinalia]

Your long history of dishonesty is very relevant to your current bout of dishonesty. It shows that it's not a simple mistake. It's a pattern of lying and misrepresentation that's been going on for years. I found 10 times (not including this thread) with a quick search where I've admitted to being wrong. I wonder how many you could find of you doing the same. I'd warrant it couldn't be more than 1 or 2. THAT'S the point. Not argument from semantics.

My long history of dishonesty? You're out of your gourd. What you on these days? Prescription or recreational?

I don't CARE how many times you've admitted you're wrong. It doesn't matter.

So why do you keep repeatedly lying by saying that I never admit I am wrong?

Why are you even on about it? Even if I didn't admit that I was wrong, which I have, it doesn't mean I'm dishonest.

It does when you can't even admit you are wrong when you are demonstrably so. See the last line of my signature for a great example of that. Fuck see this page for a great example of that where YOU posted a link that you thought supported your point, but it actually supports mine. And it's demonstrably simple, yet you still can't admit you are wrong. And you do this REPEATEDLY. SO many times Hermit, L'Emmy, and I have quoted YOUR OWN WORDS and/or YOUR OWN LINKS back at you to show clearly how you are wrong, and you are pathologically incapable of accepting that you are wrong. It's fucking embarrassing beyond belief.

You're an admitted troll, with a history of playing these games and badgering people off of threads. You have said it about yourself. This is more of the same from you.

You poor snowflake. Despite the fee fees of your delicate ego, I am not engaged in chasing you off the site. If I did I would expand my attacks beyond your specific "arguments" and your general dishonesty. You'll know if I decide to do it. Although, looking back at the stuff from 4 years ago when I chased you off the site as Coito, it seems that we could get away with a hell of a lot more then than we can now. Unfortunately I probably would only succeed in chasing myself off the site if I tried it again.

[pErvinalia]

So we see a photo that depicts a man who reveals his sexual desire via body language and a woman who is repulsed by him. What is morally or otherwise wrong with either?

Who's talking about morality? I just pointed out that a beautiful woman being repulsed by Trump pretty much "sums it [the whole Trump debacle] up". And then Dodo, a conservative, couldn't see the woman's revulsion. So I made the point that it's not surprising given that conservatives have an empathy deficit (and before you pick your nits, I know I didn't say that exactly, but it's what i meant).

Yes I have to agree with Ratz trailer trash upside down member. I can't read anybodies mind even vapid photos of miss 'something or other' and orange haired guy. Therefore i don't have empathy or mine is limited in some way. Maybe I should read the runes or start following Islam which you lefty/liberals love so much. Or maybe you are mentally ill and should seek help.

I fucking love Islam. You nailed it one.

[Hermit]

I'm referring to an image, ffs.

Indeed. And your first reference to it was "And doesn't that photo of Trump and Miss Universe say it all?" What did it say to you?
"She is repulsed by him." Your first claim that you were only talking about what the image appeared to show did not happen until six days later, by which time you also claimed that you have been saying so all along. It's ironic that you accuse me of being a liar.

[pErvinalia]

I'm referring to an image, ffs.

Indeed.

Then why do you two insist on broadening it out to hypothesised events outside of the scope of that snapshot in time?!? "Indeed", my arse. Your argument is as confused as it has been all along.

And your first reference to it was "And doesn't that photo of Trump and Miss Universe say it all?" What did it say to you?
"She is repulsed by him." Your first claim that you were only talking about what the image appeared to show did not happen until six days later, by which time you also claimed that you have been saying so all along. It's ironic that you accuse me of being a liar.

I only specifically made that comment about what the image appeared to show at that point because it wasn't necessary before that point. If I had of know that the two founding members of wewillargueanything.com were going to embark on a semantic parade of ridiculous proportions, I would have made it crystal clear from the start. Not that I should have to, as it's perfectly reasonable for functioning adults to understand that a photo is only a slice in time and is one particular representation of reality.

What's most sad about this is that, despite his obvious biases and crap reasoning skills, I can understand clearly why 42 is trying to prosecute this. An inference from my comment offends the things he holds dear: Trump, America, conservatism (even though he won't admit that last one). We've seen how he gets offended by this stuff plenty of times before. Why you are doing this, however, is actually sad. You are clearly afflicted by some OCD/Aspergers issues, and you appear to be literally unable to help yourself but nitpick, even when it winds up showing you to be prosecuting foolish and idiotic arguments. You need some fucking medication, STAT. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is sick of dealing with YOUR medical problem.

[Hermit]

And your first reference to it was "And doesn't that photo of Trump and Miss Universe say it all?" What did it say to you?
"She is repulsed by him." Your first claim that you were only talking about what the image appeared to show did not happen until six days later, by which time you also claimed that you have been saying so all along. It's ironic that you accuse me of being a liar.

I only specifically made that comment about what the image appeared to show at that point because it wasn't necessary before that point.

Let's get a couple of things cleared up.

To start with, the first time you used the word "appear" or any word resembling that meaning was in this post, where you said "ALL I've said is that that particular image gives that appearance." So that was an outright lie.

Next, regarding your present backpedalling. "And doesn't that photo of Trump and Miss Universe say it all?" in no way hints at you meaning "And doesn't that photo of Trump and Miss Universe appear to say it all?" nor does "She is repulsed by him." imply that you mean "She appears to be repulsed by him." On the contrary, the first sentence bluntly says that the photo says something about Trump and Miss Universe themselves rather than what Trump and Miss Universe appear like in the photo. Likewise, the second sentence claims that Miss Universe herself is repulsed rather than that the photograph makes her appear to be repulsed. If you meant the latter in each case you would have mentioned it that way. Now you're just trying to wriggle out of an untenable position with an untenable claim about not having to say what you did not say because we should have figured out for ourselves that you did not mean what you actually did say.

Lastly, in the context of your reply to Dodo, neither your lie nor your backpedalling make the remotest sense.

[pErvinalia]

And your first reference to it was "And doesn't that photo of Trump and Miss Universe say it all?" What did it say to you?
"She is repulsed by him." Your first claim that you were only talking about what the image appeared to show did not happen until six days later, by which time you also claimed that you have been saying so all along. It's ironic that you accuse me of being a liar.

I only specifically made that comment about what the image appeared to show at that point because it wasn't necessary before that point.

Let's get a couple of things cleared up.

To start with, the first time you used the word "appear" or any word resembling that meaning was in this post, where you said "ALL I've said is that that particular image gives that appearance." So that was an outright lie.

Bull-fucking-shit! I never mentioned anything outside of what the image was showing (i.e. in that slice of time) in my view. I meant that it "shows it all" regarding Trump. I.e. the broader problems that Trump has faced (like sexual assault allegations), NOT what was definitively going on when that image was taken. Stop trying to make it about something it isn't and never was. You have interpreted it wrong. Deal with it.

Next, regarding your present backpedalling. "And doesn't that photo of Trump and Miss Universe say it all?" in no way hints at you meaning "And doesn't that photo of Trump and Miss Universe appear to say it all?" nor does "She is repulsed by him." imply that you mean "She appears to be repulsed by him." On the contrary, the first sentence bluntly says that the photo says something about Trump and Miss Universe themselves

I meant it says it all in the context of Trump's broader problems (as I clearly elucidated later when someone asked about it). That I didn't say it originally just to your medically retarded liking, is not my problem. That's your problem. You don't get to invent meanings that simply aren't there. Well, you can invent whatever you want in your retardations, but don't make them my problem. That's between you and your fucked up mind.

Likewise, the second sentence claims that Miss Universe herself is repulsed rather than that the photograph makes her appear to be repulsed.

As I said, reasonable adults understand meanings and context without them being literally spelled out for them. Retarded simpletons don't. Which category are you in?

If you meant the latter in each case you would have mentioned it that way.

I did, a fuckton of times once it was clear that you two had a bee in your bonnet. If you don't accept my explanation, then that's your problem. You can induce what you want from my original point, but that is all it will be. An induction. I categorically didn't say anything about the wider reality of what was going on around that photo. I only commented on her look in that single slice of time.

Now you're just trying to wriggle out of an untenable position with an untenable claim about not having to say what you did not say because we should have figured out for ourselves that you did not mean what you actually did say.

No wriggling whatsoever. You've invented meaning where there is none. I categorically didn't state anything about the wider reality of what was going on around that photo. Period. Any more than that is coming from your mind. And anything coming from that mind is going to demonstrably mangled.

your lie

Fuck off. I haven't lied. Unlike you who directly and unambiguously lied. You are confusing me not agreeing with your convenient interpretation of my words as lying. It's nothing of the sort. It's a disagreement about your interpretation. You don't even fucking know what a "lie" is. Your whole posting history for the last couple of months has descended into confusion and incoherence. Sort your shit out.

backpedalling make the remotest sense.

I haven't backpeddled in the slightest. I stand by everything I said in those posts that you claim are problematic. What doesn't make sense is your confused attempt to fabricate a disagreement so that you can perform at your medically most retarded.

[pErvinalia]

I can't be any clearer. The image shows a slice in time where she is repulsed by Trump. That is necessarily an appearance, as it is a single slice in time. It can't be anything more than an appearance. That slice in time may reflect reality at the time the photo was taken, but not necessarily so. It can be interpreted to be showing other things too. I speculate that Dodo can't see the revulsion because, as a conservative, he probably has an empathy deficit. Anything else extra to this is an invention by the guy who is pissed off that I could be seen to be attacking his buddy Trump, America and conservatism, and seems nearly pathologically incapable of admitting he is wrong; and the guy who has a long history of being an anal pain in the arse to everyone.

[Forty Two]

It would be nice to get back to the perfidious Venezuelans, rather than an increasingly petulant 3-way kindergarten squabble...

That's rather a rather colorblind oversimplification of what repeatedly happens on thread after thread. But, I understand what you're saying.

[pErvinalia]

You just can't take ownership of what you say, can you?

[Forty Two]

Oh ffs, you guys are pathetic. I'm referring to an image, ffs. Not the broader reality. You are so desperate to see it otherwise you have descended to ridiculous semantic arguments.

Look, going by the words you use is not an inability to read English. It's your inability to write it clearly. The problem isn't really the vagueness and impreciseness of your words, or that you seem to sometimes write something different than you mean, because that can be corrected and your meaning made clear. The problem is you couple these things with insults to other people. If someone reads what you write and respond to that, you will, like you did here, go off on a tangent not only correcting or clarifying, but insulting everyone whose responded to you based on what you wrote. They lack empathy, they can't read English, they're stupid, they're dishonest.

You wrote that she was repulsed. Then you clarified that to say that you had no idea if she really was repulsed, just that the image made you think she was repulsed. You also first said that the image said it all and showed she was repulsed, and that anyone who didn't see that lacked empathy and social skills. So, other people posted that the picture could be interpreted multiple ways, and didn't exactly show unequivocally or clearly that she was repulsed. You insulted those who took that position, but now you admit that position - you admit that the picture can be interpreted multiple ways.

So, based on your recent postings, you actually agree with my position where I illustrated that interpretation of a picture is often based on our expectations, and whether she looks to you as if she's "pulling away" or to someone else as if she's merely turning her shoulders a bit, is heavily dependent on the point of view we bring to the table. At least, that's how I read your more recent posts on the topic.

Nothing wrong with that, as we hone and clarify our positions all the time. The problem is with the insults peppering your posts on the topic. I'm not going over and over the same ground with you anymore. Just cut the bullshit, please.

[Forty Two]

You just can't take ownership of what you say, can you?

Do you not see yourself? Do you not see your own posts? Ownership of what you say? This whole exchange is about you not taking ownership of what you say.

[pErvinalia]

Oh ffs, you guys are pathetic. I'm referring to an image, ffs. Not the broader reality. You are so desperate to see it otherwise you have descended to ridiculous semantic arguments.

Look, going by the words you use is not an inability to read English. It's your inability to write it clearly.

Bullshit. It's an inability by you two to understand the context of the comment. It really shouldn't be necessary to state that a description of a photograph can't be necessarily translated across to a description of reality at the time the photograph was taken. It's a description of what appears to be happening in the photograph. As I have said repeatedly, it is necessarily an appearance. It can't be anything else.

The problem isn't really the vagueness and impreciseness of your words, or that you seem to sometimes write something different than you mean, because that can be corrected and your meaning made clear. The problem is you couple these things with insults to other people.

I'll go back and check, but the insults to Hermit didn't start until his dishonesty and his own personal attacks started. And of course I insult you as you've been permanently dishonest for the last 6 or 7 years.

You act as if it would be fine if I made a statement that you interpreted differently from the way I intended, as long as I clarified what I meant. I fucking have to do that for you all the bloody time, because you interpret stuff totally differently from the majority of people. Yet clarifications don't stop you. You often totally ignore clarification, and even start accusing me of lying that the clarification was what I originally meant. So, basically, get fucked.

they're dishonest.

You are demonstrably dishonest in general, and Hermit was shown categorically to be lying in this thread. So I stand by my characterisations of you two.

You wrote that she was repulsed. Then you clarified that to say that you had no idea if she really was repulsed, just that the image made you think she was repulsed.

Very good, you can read. Sometimes. Although, I would phrase it as "...just that the image made you think it was possible she was repulsed". So what's the problem?

You also first said that the image said it all and showed she was repulsed, and that anyone who didn't see that lacked empathy and social skills. So, other people posted that the picture could be interpreted multiple ways, and didn't exactly show unequivocally or clearly that she was repulsed. You insulted those who took that position, but now you admit that position - you admit that the picture can be interpreted multiple ways.

That's a non-sequitur. The image can be interpreted in multiple ways. That doesn't mean it can be interpreted in only one of multiple ways. It's my contention that if someone can't see the undercurrent of revulsion in her look, then they probably are lacking some social awareness/empathy.

So, based on your recent postings, you actually agree with my position where I illustrated that interpretation of a picture is often based on our expectations, and whether she looks to you as if she's "pulling away" or to someone else as if she's merely turning her shoulders a bit, is heavily dependent on the point of view we bring to the table. At least, that's how I read your more recent posts on the topic.

"Recent postings"... I've never disagreed with that position. Why you think such an obvious thing needs a show of agreement, I can only speculate. And as usual, I don't speculate positively.

Nothing wrong with that, as we hone and clarify our positions all the time. The problem is with the insults peppering your posts on the topic. I'm not going over and over the same ground with you anymore. Just cut the bullshit, please.

The insults stop when you stop being dishonest. Easy.

[pErvinalia]

You just can't take ownership of what you say, can you?

Do you not see yourself? Do you not see your own posts? Ownership of what you say? This whole exchange is about you not taking ownership of what you say.

Oh man. Jim just told you that you are responsible in part for this. You had a whinge. That's why it is perfectly relevant to point out to you to take ownership of what you wrote in this thread. And I have taken full ownership of what I wrote. As I've explained to both of you, you have misinterpreted my meaning. You categorically cannot show anything that unambiguously points to me referring to anything about the reality as it was concerning the interaction between them when the photo was taken. You haven't done so yet, and you won't be able to. Because I didn't say it. What I said was interpreted by you to mean one thing. I clarified for you. You still don't fucking get it. It's a never ending head-banging-on-wall session with you.