Sometimes stupid loses

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, John A. wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 03:18:16 -0700, Crash! wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 13:24:59 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:

Many people shower their writing with assertions without ever
producing anything which one might reasonably describe as an
argument. Some statements look like arguments, but are not.

Its virtually impossible to do otherwise. You couldn't write a simple
sentence without referencing every word to some dictionary or other and your
footnotes would be severl dozen times as long as whatever it is you wrote.

You have a good point, but your argument runs to
the absurd. You seem to imply that logical discussion
is impossible because it would be like mindless
robots following endless rules. But the good news
is, people neither think nor talk like that.
However, obstrucionists might and sometimes do.
They simply don't get invited back.
People have context, something machines have problems with.
Machines don't have that complexity.

I believe he's using 'reductio ad absurdum' to show that people don't
do that. Not sure it's well-done, but that's what he's doing.

Yep. You didn't find the rebuttal effective?

The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.