Oberon wrote:If the change was based upon normal, rational information, I'd agree. Your change was based upon your sudden conclusion that foolamancy was somehow involved,Kreistor wrote:Changing your opinion in the face of new information is not flip-flopping. It is the only rational choice.
Despite the fact that's a myopic viewpoint, there's a simple counter. Prove that it wasn't Foolamancy. If you can't do that, then it's just more spin, spin, spin.
That doesn't prove that you're a "normal, reasonable, rational human being",
Ah, but continuing this argument proves you're rational, I suppose?
The first step in the Scientific method is to Observe. That is what I did. I observed the bracer had reported the wrong information. The next step is to Hypothesize. Which I did. The one know way to hide the truth that had been in the room was Foolamancy, which tricks vision into seeing falsehood. This leads to the suggestion that Jack may have remained alive.
I am not going to take any criticism for using the Scientific Method, Oberon. And that I did so proves my rationality. Ignoring new Observations and stubbornly sticking to a no-longer supportable belief? Nobody views that as rational.
And only later, after something (who knows what...) triggered your sanity routine, did you manage to flip back again to your original conclusion.
Wow, you know, you could actually read my first post this thread and find out. It's right there for all to read. But, again, you fail to do your homework, operate on pure memory, and kick your own teeth in.
Bullshit. To flip-flop you only need to change your mind. The motives behind that change are irrelevant. They could be political, sure, but they could also be for any one of a number of other reasons. You do not get to define the term by your limited scope. It surpasses you, just as does logic.Kreistor wrote:To flip-flop, you need to respond to peer pressure (the politician's method), or as in your case, switch back and forth between two conflicting viewpoints. (Which is also double-speak, by the way, in the classic Orwellian sense, since you maintain two mutually exclusive facts as true.)
Then I gladly accept your accusation of "flip-flop", and proudly hold it up for all to see, for it is the only rational choice for the reasonable human. The alternative -- stubbornly clinging to a belief that has new counter-evidence -- is irrational and vile. But, the thing is, you have redefined it as a neutral character trait, removing the negative connotations. And now you're saying to yourself, "No, I didn't!" Yep, you just did. Thanks.
"The motives behind that change are irrelevant." And with that, you just ripped all connotation from "flip-flop". It is now synonymous with all forms of change of opinion, not just the negatives ones, which require a negative motivation behind the change to create a negative connotation. You've made Einstein a "flip-flop" for switching from a Newtonian universe to Relative one. And FDR is a "flip-flop" for allowing the USA into WW2. Their motives are irrelevant according to you. I can now proudly stand beside all the "flip-flops" in the world, because we have no motivation for you to vilify us for. Thus, there is no negative connotation behind my switching from thinking Jack was dead to alive and back to dead. Now, since that's perfectly motivationless, what's your justification for even pointing it out to start with and provoking this wretched argument?
You can't have it both ways. If you think "flip-flop" is a negative character trait, you're going to have to explain exactly what the negative component is, since you have removed the typical "wishy-washiness" associated with it. Good luck with that.
Kreistor wrote:But just as you have attacked others for citing only the most common causes of volcanism by citing the least common (all the while ignoring other very valid causes), I call bullshit on your choice of words. Vilify is "To make vicious and defamatory statements about", I only call attention to your false statements and your attempts to avoid being assigned responsibility for your own words.
You have not once pointed to a single false statement of mine. I have never failed to take responsibility for my words.
I simply do not accept your interpretation of events, which is proven by citation, and I refuse to accept your redefinition of words to suit your needs, which anyone that has been reading can see is your modus operandi.
I note that you avoided dealing with the double-speak, which demonstrates that you are incapable of taking responsibility for your own words. And I clearly pointed out that the very first statement about my conclusions (Re: Jack's death) was plainly false. You are, in fact, accusing me of what you cannot avoid guilt for.
Dig that hole.