Dilbert Comic Strip Pulled From 77 Newspapers Today

It was a tweet sent by the creator of Dilbert.

koobookie wrote:

Rick wrote: There’s another really easy option for people who are offended by people who don’t provide a link… ignore the thread and move along. I have no interest in the topic since I don’t read that comic, or any comic for that matter. I only became interested when I read the reactions to Fred’s unacceptable crime. Thanks for the laugh.

Seriously, why should I have had to do Fred's work? Why should I have to research a claim made by Fred? It's Debate 101.

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Actual debate is two or more people debating issues without the internet in front of them where they can shove an article in the face of their opponents. If someone makes a statement that an opponent disagrees with, it’s the opponent who must counter with their own knowledge of the issue. I’ve never seen a real debate that mimics a forum full of link warriors.

If I have a problem with something you or Fred says, I’ll provide the evidence.., but that’s not how a debate works. Debates require good memories and knowledge of the subject matter.., what we do here is regurgitation of internet info that may or may not be accurate. There’s a big difference.

No, what I outlined is exactly how debate works. If I make a statement, I then back it up with facts. Otherwise, it's just an opinion that can be dismissed out of hand. It's called "Burden of Proof."

An example:

8. Thou shall not lay the burn of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (“Burden of Proof Reversal”).

Example: Marcy claims she sees the ghosts of dead people, then challenges you to prove her wrong. The burden of proof is on Marcy, not you, since Marcy made the extraordinary claim.

www.datalounge.com/thread/15811626-the-1...s-for-logical-debate

I’ve watched many debates and have never seen one where the people debating had access to outside information. Can you show me one that allowed that?

We argue about who’s sources are right or wrong but debate is very rare around here. Debates are designed to convince an audience of who knows what they are talking about. It’s a good way for voters to make an educated decision, that’s why there’s several Democrats who are refusing to debate Republicans prior to the coming election.

Have to agree, posting articles develops into the card game War, slapping down articles, and often the articles are actually opinion pieces masquerading as news stories from hard left magazines like Rolling Stone or the Atlantic who consistently have been caught not verifying sources.

Do you want to play cards or find the opinions of your neighbors?

We've gone round and round on this before. There's no real debate here because one side just gives opinions and the other side gives facts. One side won't read those facts, so the fact giving side gives up. Look at how often SC has posted after giving up when none of you will read or respond to her fact based posts.

I think you are confusing a physical debate with an online debate. Is what you want a yelling contest like what is broadcast on FOX when they have two sides presenting their issues? Is that what you consider debate?

Debate is defined as engaging in argument by discussing opposing points. Often times, facts are presented in a debate, but apparently, few here want to see facts.

What's even more disturbing is that we can't even agree on sources for facts, since you've never told anyone what are your trusted sources.

See, K wants to just post articles that back up her beliefs. I want to hear what local people care about. A bulletin board like this can work in different ways.

On the statewide ballot, voters will get to decide if huge corporations can buy more liquor stores. Does Colorado want the lower prices this will create? Or do voters want to protect Mom and Pop local liquor stores?

K could post both arguments in the blue book, but I would rather hear what people here think.

So, MMT is just a sort of an office water cooler for you? You just want to sit in a diner booth, drinking endless coffee refills, and shoot the breeze? You don't want to digest facts, just give unsubstantiated opinions? Do I have that right?

That would be nice actually, except I can ask a forest question 20 times and all I get is diversions and claims of past answers I’m told to search for.

In my thread about green energy killing millions of people, that’s clearly just my opinion based on what I’ve read. I’d love someone to disprove my premise with facts but I think a contrary OPINION would be just as welcome. Many topics can’t be proven one way or another but that’s ok. It’s the way it used to be done before we had trillions of information bits flying around through space and being substituted for critical thinking. The whole impeachment thread is fill of stuff that was laid out as facts but most turned out to be assumptions and allegations that eventually died because the whole premise was based solely on speculation and made up bullshit.

koobookie wrote: So, MMT is just a sort of an office water cooler for you? You just want to sit in a diner booth, drinking endless coffee refills, and shoot the breeze? You don't want to digest facts, just give unsubstantiated opinions? Do I have that right?

Yes, seems more friendly than links behind pay walls and select quotes.