04 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI assumed as much. It sounds worse than "flubbed", but I can appreciate the emotion behind your choice of words.
~ To fluff = make a mess of, destroy or ruin.
Given any thought yet to my rephrasing of the original question? And by "rephrasing" I don't mean of the same subject matter. I'm referring to the relational dynamics of the elements therein, and not the elements themselves. Think of it as an equation, where you can plug values in... the values can change, but the structure of the equation and relation of values therein remains the same.
don't you just love it when a Blowhard gets blowback from a Windbag?
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by lemon limeFluffed version: "By the way, have you beaten your wife today? [Yes or no]"
Given any thought yet to my rephrasing of the original question? And by "rephrasing" I don't mean of the same subject matter. I'm referring to the relational dynamics of the elements therein, and not the elements themselves. Think of it as an equation, where you can plug values in... the values can change, but the structure of the equation and relation of values therein remains the same.
Answer is "no".
Fumbling explanation: "The operative word in the question I asked is 'today'. Think about it."
I have thought about it. You fluffed it, "today" or no "today".
Answer is still "no".
A version that works: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFI was referring to this question:
Fluffed version: "By the way, have you beaten your wife today? [Yes or no]"
Answer is "no".
Fumbling explanation: "The operative word in the question I asked is 'today'. Think about it."
I have thought about it. You fluffed it, "today" or no "today".
Answer is still "no".
A version that works: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
If you ask a mother "Have you hugged your child today" and she says "no", does this mean she has never hugged her child?
Do you see it now? The word "today" narrows the question down to a particular time.
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by lemon limeSo what if it narrows it down? My answer was "no". And you've got no gotcha!
Do you see it now? The word "today" narrows the question down to a particular time.
Asking a loaded question like the one you meant to, but fumbled [ostensibly because you were trying to not be too obvious, as you admitted], and then limiting the answer to a yes or no, is a logical fallacy [on the questioner's part].
In our discussion about your political backwardness ~ as demonstrated earlier on this thread by your use of the pejorative word "henpecked" to condescend someone who disagreed with you about women's rights ~ I didn't 'commit' any logical fallacies, so this whole deflecting tangent about 'loaded questions' that you yourself initiated has been nothing but a red herring.
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFlimiting the answer to a yes or no, is a logical fallacy [on the questioner's part]
So what if it narrows it down? My answer was "no". And you've got no gotcha!
Asking a loaded question like the one you meant to, but fumbled [ostensibly because you were trying to not be too obvious, as you admitted], and then limiting the answer to a yes or no, is a logical fallacy [on the questioner's part].
In our discussion about your political backwa ...[text shortened]... tangent about 'loaded questions' that you yourself initiated has been nothing but a red herring.
If you knew this then why did you answer the question? Why would you walk into a trap if you knew it was a trap?
I did not ask "Have you stopped beating your wife?" So why do you continue to try changing the subject? [deflection] The question I asked was the question I asked, and you said "no". Sorry bubba, but you've already answered that question... you can't just make it go away or pretend it didn't happen.
And we've moved passed your fumbling attempt to portray me as politically backwards, so why are you trying to go back there? Is this because of your failed attempt to explain away the trap you fell into now? I'm not distracted by pathetic attempts at deflection or by your attempt to change the subject... but if it makes you feel better then by all means, keep it up.
04 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThe correct response would have been to not respond. Or to not respond, and then correctly analyse the question and point out the flaw.
Because when you tried to load the question, you fluffed it. Answering "no" was as succinct a riposte as one could give.
You're fluffing your explanation here because your analysis of the question is after the fact... you fell into a trap, and now you are trying to recover (and salve your pride) by making it look as though you already knew the problem with the question.
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI immediately realized you'd fluffed your attempt at asking a loaded question and so I answered "no". I answered "no" again even when you bumbled on with it. And I am still answering "no" now. So I don't see what 'trying to recover' thing you think is going on. I have given the same 'no' answer all along.
You're fluffing your explanation here because your analysis of the question is after the fact... you fell into a trap, and now you are trying to recover (and salve your pride) by making it look as though you already knew the problem with the question.
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFI may be the one guilty of initiating it. I couldn't help myself. 😛
So what if it narrows it down? My answer was "no". And you've got no gotcha!
Asking a loaded question like the one you meant to, but fumbled [ostensibly because you were trying to not be too obvious, as you admitted], and then limiting the answer to a yes or no, is a logical fallacy [on the questioner's part].
In our discussion about your political backwa ...[text shortened]... tangent about 'loaded questions' that you yourself initiated has been nothing but a red herring.