Antiseptic, 

You have not hurt my feelings and I have said nothing to indicate anything of the sort. I have simply pointed out to you that you are obliged to support your claims and that if you don't, then it only comes across as evasiveness.

I have given you the opportunity to support your claims and, not to my surprise, you have apparently declined.

Earlier, I pointed out that I did not believe I had alluded to any of what you have read into my comments. You ignored that and continued on as if nothing had been said. That's rude.

Now, with such a blatantly evasive and snide response to what is a reasonable request from myself, any willingness on my behalf, to give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you are merely confused and are having difficulty keeping up, has faded.

I have provided you with reasoned argument every step of the way, I have not intentionally misrepresenting you at any point and I even had the courtesy to retract a false assumption when I made one. Why am I not entitled to the same respect? Why does requesting the same treatment have to be an indication of hurt feelings?

I suspect it's because it is in fact you who has been backed into a corner and that you are not willing or able to reflect on why that is.

Your actions on this thread have been less-than-admirable, to say the very least.

Anti,

Yes, I suppose one could look at it like that - except the bipartisanship isn't being presented as bipartisan.

Here's a quick run down of the latest developments.

LNP - We'll turn back the boats because Howard did it.

Labor - We'll turn ourselves inside out and - ta da! We'll send every asylum seeker and his cat to Manus.

LNP - Well we're going to put a three star general in charge to shoo 'em away....and if that don't work, we'll send 'em to Nauru

Labor - We'll send 'em to Narua as well!

LNP - Gonski is a "Conski". We'll guarantee it for next year and then we'll have to take it apart and fix up Labor's folly.

Labor - we're still going Gonski.

LNP - (The very next day) We're supporting Gonski now, so you can all have certainty.

(Pyne - Our Gonski is going to be the "real Gonski". Labor's Gonski isn't a real Gonski)

So, Anti, you can see that it isn't really bipartisanship. It's populism and political opportunism for election purposes. It seems neither side has any solid foundation these days.

But I do understand we're you're coming from....however, to me it's more like this:

http://thehoopla.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/bugs-bunny-yosemite-sam.jpg

(Excuse the off topic post - just replying to Anti)

its sad..that facts
are so..limited..that we must take*..leaps/bounds of assumption..just to try..to help other.

<><''Delusion vs Hallucination

Hallucinations..are false
or distorted..sensory experiences..>>

lets go..with that
false or distorted..SENse-SORRY...experiences*

thus input..via the normative senses..stated.,.*smell taste..touch hearing/seeing..[lets expand it..

heat/cold sensation..dread/fear sense....helplessness/omnipotence copmplex
..angst/lack..fullness/puffy senses..
lets add in emotional senses..anger hurt love boretdumb
imp waste/haste..the need to troll..lol

all* sort of common to..non..*sense..
<<that appear to be..veridical perceptions.>>

whatever they are..
im presuming liniar/causal linked perception..
our senses received..by some extraordinary..[not natural]..attributable input?]

<<..These sensory impressions..are generated by the mind !
rather than by any external stimuli..>>that isnt logical..then lol*..this

<<,..and may be seen,..heard,..felt,..and
even smelled or tasted.>>

to wit wasnt ALL..'generated*,in the mind'
it must thus be a real*..[attributable..sensory..
[naturally generated]..real..gene*rated input..

<<A delusion..is a false belief*
..based on incorrect inference*..about external reality>>

like asuming
if one says im athiest,..that they came via logical
..agnost-o-synacysm..not just..blind biassed delusion?

<<that is firmly sustained..
despite what almost everybody else believes>>>..

lol.. tell coppernickers..and the flat earthers

key bit....<<..and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.>>

none presented
thus the need to presume..or ignore the troll$$
but trolls teach us..in refuting them,..t[hus lack 0f fact..presented].,

logical CON-collusion...bias..?

<<The {ERRANT}..belief..is not one ordinarily accepted.. LOL
..by other members of the person's culture>>..lol

<<or subculture..e.g.,it is not an article of religious>>..
{OR faux-SCIENCE BASED DELUSION}....*<<faith).

<<A hallucination occurs..when environmental,>>
circumstance or EMOTIVE..sacred cows..

<<emotional,or physical factors
such as stress,medication,..extreme fatigue,..
or mental illness..cause the mechanism..within the brain
that..[helps to]..distinguish conscious perceptions..from internal,..<<KEY BIT*>>>memory-based perceptions..to misfire.>>

KEY*..<<As a result,..hallucinations occur
during periods of consciousness.>>

contra logical
its really the dream realm..
returning to vivid dreaming sleep..[state]
while conscious..[or so the mind inputs feel may be reasonable]

..<<They can appear in the form of visions,..voices or sounds, tactile feelings (known as haptic hallucinations), smells, or tastes.>>..

no wonder psychiatry..is a fraud [often called a fauxe science
makes sense..or else how else athiest.or a theist.. be validated as deficient..or deviant of otherwise defective

[is re-educating theists
still party=policy.. of the new seculiar..[old athiest]...party..?

ya gotta love
how igot back to..poll-lie..spin

Antiseptic,

I have to agree with AJ Phillips in regard to the way you continually shift your ground and sprinkle your arguments with jargon.

mac,

I am sure you and AJ Philips can lead a meaningful exchange of arguments between you two on a topic of mutual interest (maybe what are and what are not “shifting grounds”?). An exchange that will lead both of you to enhance and broaden your own positions. And without interference of outsiders who have different debating standards that you call “dishonest” and “sprinkled with jargon”.

The same as my exchange of opinions with Antiseptic about philosophy of science (and the relevance or not to the concept of God) has enhanced and broadened my position (and hopefully also his) on these matters, without us intentionally wanting to upset those who cannot follow the “jargon” necessary in this kind of opinion exchange.

I'm sorry you feel that way, mac. Two points: first, what you call "jargon" is simply clear language. I could use many more words, but that wouldn't make the points any clearer. The words I use have clear meanings, which anybody is welcome to look up for themselves. Second, I'm not arguing, but trying to hold a discussion of ideas. The only things I assert are those that I can say I have experienced and I show my working, so to speak. I have clearly said what the basis for my reasoning is and that I am hypothesising a particular ontology to explain those experiences/observations. AJ is upset that I don't disclose the observations and that I have shown flaws in his reasoning, he hasn't actually addressed my own reasoning, but that's OK, he has his own epistemiological approach that he feels comfortable with even if I think it's not likely to be very productive in the circumstances.

My position is simple: we all have different experiences and attributes and in my case a combination of those two things has lead me to a particular hypothesis. I'd like to think that there may be a way to generalise to a theoretical approach from that, but if there's not, then so be it. Complexity is intrinsically tough to pin down, after all and a simplistic approach is unlikely to yield useful insights any more than adherence to a dominant consensus is likely to produce new concepts.

Have you had a read of that link I put up? It has a pretty good discussion of the way I think about things generally, although it isn't specifically about this topic.

Poirot, could it be that you're looking at the surface politics rather than the underlying reasoning?