"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ron wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article .com>,
>> >> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology.
>> >> >>The
>> >> >>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>> >> >>running your mouth about it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any
>> >> > other
>> >> > vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding
>> >> > vote,
>> >> > my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
>> >>
>> >> Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
>> >> decisive and significant.
>> >
>> > It is not significant. That is your error. It is one of many, many
>> > votes.
>>
>> Right, they are all equal, therefore every one is significant. The only
>> option is that they are all insigificant, and that is clearly wrong.
>
> No. They are examples of insignificant cause. An election is won based
> on a variety of factors.

An election is won by votes, all of which are equally significant.

> Oddly, all of your arguments point back to the
> individual being important, special, or significant in some way.

Individuals are important, special or significant in some way.

>> >> Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
>> >> clever, when you so plainly aren't?
>> >
>> > I think I have a tendency to be curious. Any other labeling that you
>> > attach to it is your issue.
>>
>> You are not curious, you are ego-obessed with trying to win debating
>> points,
>> so much so that you have not learned anything, apparently not in years.
>
> I have clearly demonstrated my curiosity.

Not to me.

> In fact, I have started
> several posts with that phrase.

Usually as a lean-in to a snide rhretorical question, not out of genuine
curiosity.

>Further, I didn't ask you to be my
> teacher.

A smart individual considers everyone their teacher. I continue to attempt
to make you my teacher, but it's a losing cause, except as a lesson in how
bone-headed someone can be, but I already have enough examples of that..

Nor did I state that I wanted to learn what you think you can
> teach me. Your arrogance in assuming that I lacked what you think you
> have to offer is about you.

A closed minded, arrogant individual thinks that nobody can teach them
anything. Thanks for confirming it.

> For example, I have been familiar with the body image arguments and
> media blaming for decades. Thanks for telling me something that I
> already knew. I have also been aware of conflicting and contradictory
> opinions of anorexia for years. I also have my own observations having
> viewed many of the relevant arguments regarding anorexia.

The truth got boring did it?

> I acquire new information on a daily basis. To assume that I don't learn
> anything is about you.

There have been numerous instances where I KNOW that you have been on the
wrong track on issues, and in NOT ONE instance have you appeared to have
adjusted your thinking one iota, even when given numerous irrefutable
arguments. The 'false dilemma' is the latest in a long string of such
instances.