Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I didn't think you were capable of laughing? Live and learn...Horse laugh of the month.
I didn't think you were capable of laughing? Live and learn...Horse laugh of the month.
You do know what "effectively" means, right? It means to have a certain result. No mindreading, necessary."Effectively"? Mindreading again.
I have quoted, numerous times, such that it shouldn't have been necessary, other than the pedantic among us, to have to quote yet again. Still no mindreading involved.You need to quote, rather than attempt further paraphrase.
The points presented! Are you not able to keep up? "Why?" becasue he found me arguing in bad faith. Avoidance of specific points - because of character trait - ad hominem argument.Avoid what? Why?
No, read what he actually posted. He didn't seek to avoid me, but the "rest of your post". I.e. respond to some, not others. Had he said "I will not respond to you from now on" then you'd be on to something.In this case, avoid the poster - at least on certain topics - because their posting has proven to be bullshit or in bad faith some other way.
Not when the intention is to avoid certain points, as is the case here.That's the opposite of an ad hominem argument.
It is the intention (explicit in this case) to avoid those points, thus this makes it an ad hominem.Once again, for the slow: an argument from the nature of the post to the nature of the poster is not an ad hominem argument - its direction of implication is opposite an ad hominem argument's, it is not directed at the points made, etc.
And this is the fourth or fifth time I have had to correct you. Go figure. I have specified numerous times, and it is explicit in what QQ said at the time, which has been quoted numerous times now. Your failure to recognise that is not on me.(And that is the fourth or fifth time you have encountered that exact and key, central, almost definitive observation - yet you still post about the intention to avoid without specifying what is being avoided.
Perhaps because you remain wrong, for reasons given. And your continued agenda against a certain political faction is tiresome in its irrelevancy here. We get it. You don't like them. Move on already!Which is a bit strange, even though it is so familiar from that one political faction - why do you suppose you reposted an ambiguous source of hassle and confusion like that, after other people had clarified the matter several times?
They have sought to avoid those points, not the poster entirely. Just those points. That is what the explicit words written are: "rest of your post". Not "you", not "all of your subsequent posts", just "rest of your post". Got that yet? Need it quoted yet again?In this case they have made no argument against the "points", at all.
If one avoids the bullshitter entirely then you are correct, but that is not the case here. The specific words being "rest of your post".For example: As you have seen, the points made by a bullshitter are occasionally valid, worthy, etc - avoiding a bullshitter or other form of bad faith poster says nothing about the "worth" of whatever "points" they are "raising" this time.
It depends if you have to live with the person or not, I guess.--Or-- Why do we fight to agree? --Or-- If given the choice, is it better to be right or kind?
We can add fear of ice-cream to the list, if you want. Or fear of mice? Or having any phobia at all?Can we add
Fear of intimacy/Unity
to the list of why we do it?
Finally something else to add to the list... well done...Here's a thought: maybe someone does it because they don't know what an ad hominem is, why ad hominems are (mostly) fallacious, and can't discuss logically.
The term "Violence" for example is defined by the WHO as follows re: wiki
"...Less conventional definitions are also used, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."
Given that this isn't what I wrote, nor can be implied from it, there is no need to assign it to me.Finally something else to add to the list... well done...
Thanks Sarkus you are a gem!
- Attempting to cover up their Incompetence...
Likewise nearly everything you have offered as a "reason".I am not sure how Ice cream fits but hey what ever rocks your boat... lol
This was addressed at the start of this thread, wasn't it.One aspect, though , that I wanted to discuss was whether of not an AAH was an act of violence as defined by the WHO.
any thoughts?
Certainly it is an attack against the opponents good will and a betrayal of good faith.
Yes you did have go at it , but failed to discuss it.This was addressed at the start of this thread, wasn't it.
Might i refer you to posts #9 onward of this thread.
Yes after you decided to consider yourself to be speaking for every one else other than me in post #39 and then doubled down when I asked you to explain in post #40 to which you repeated your argument ad hominem in post #72 to which I responded with the following:I'm not the one who simply posted "interesting..." in response (see your post #21) to my initial reply, and then moved on.
You then posted (as is your want to use 2 or 3 posts when 1 will do) #23 on the matter which I responded to at length in #39.
You then replied to one comment within that post (see your post #40), ignoring the main content of my response.
You have yet to address the rest of post #39 on the matter.
So I've had a go, and you've opted to ignore it. The failure is yours. Care to address it? Or are you expecting people to simply restate what they've already written so you can ignore them again?
You made a big mistake by ignoring the WHO definition for violence and the other definitions of violence that other members had provided and instead demonstrated bad faith posting by continuing your attack on me personally.ahh .. thanks for clarifying your mistake...
and your intention was what?
perhaps if you read his posts you would know...
given your lack of good will, I will refrain from discussing the rest of your post...
By giving the opinion that you seemed to have a different opinion of what constitutes "violence" to everyone else that had posted on the matter? Ooookay, if that's what you think, you're entitled to it.Yes after you decided to consider yourself to be speaking for every one else other than me in post #39...
Well, at least you're on the subject of AAH. You said that there seemed to be at least two perspectives on what amounts to abuse, and I asked/commented if you meant that the two were yours and everyone elses? How is that an AAH?and then doubled down when I asked you to explain in post #40 to which you repeated your argument ad hominem in post #72 to which I responded with the following:
I didn't ignore the WHO definition at all. You even highlighted the "psychological harm", of which the paper-cut of an AAH would now qualify. Except by you. Hence the two perspectives I asked if you were referring to was your's on one side and everyone else's on the other. Still no AAH.You made a big mistake by ignoring the WHO definition for violence and the other definitions of violence that other members had provided and instead demonstrated bad faith posting by continuing your attack on me personally.
The points stand. Your post has been addressed by me. Your perspective of "abusive" is demonstrably flawed, given you think an AAH is psychological harm. You have chosen to ignore those points, to which you are entitled to do, but you then claimed I failed to discuss your post. Which is incorrect.Therefore your points were never actually considered because you were posting in a "abusive" manner...
thus: post #75
Yes, it is, for reasons given."given your lack of good will, I will refrain from discussing the rest of your post..."
is not an AAH.
"Constant use of AAH"? Care to provide an example of just one I have made in this thread? Just one?It is in fact a response to your constant use of AAH and the lack of good will and faith that entails.
No not really.. because prior to your post #39 I had not explained my personal opinion about violence.. In fact I don't think I have ever in this thread explained my personal view about what constitutes violence...By giving the opinion that you seemed to have a different opinion of what constitutes "violence" to everyone else that had posted on the matter? Ooookay, .
Again you use that word "every one else" as if you can speak with authority.On a side note, I have always found it incredibly ironic that you have a tendency to accuse everyone else of having psychological issues, questioning their mental state, of being "abusive", of not discussing in good faith.
sure,"Constant use of AAH"? Care to provide an example of just one I have made in this thread? Just one?
it is interesting that there appears to be at least two perspectives on what amounts to abuse, slowly emerging in this thread...
How do you define Abuse?
You mean yours and everyone else's?
which is incorrect because I wrote that there were at least two perspectives emerging and what is more my perspective isn't among them.. not yet any how..Sure. You claimed that you reckoned there were two perspectives on what amounts to abuse. I was simply clarifying that it seemed to me that those two were 1: yours; 2: everyone else's.
Nope.So your repeated false comment is demonstrably an AAH.
Even if you think I did avoid you and misrepresent you, they are two separate things. One was not the reason for the other.Because you avoided the argument about violence and attempted to attack me with your misrepresentation.
Your was, because one was the reason for the avoidance of the specific points raised. i.e. the "... rest of the post".Thus my post about not responding to your post is not an AAH.
No, merely an observation. I am not speaking for them, I am speaking of an observation I have made. Not difficult to tell the difference.Again you use that word "every one else" as if you can speak with authority.
I responded to the questions, and any attack you perceive was incidental. There was no avoidance. No AAH. Care to try again?sure,
we were discussing what constitutes violence and you avoided the argument by attacking the person by posting:
I explained the comment, yes. Whether you find it inane or not is up to you. You seemed to understand it after the explanation, so clearly the explanation was satisfactory.I ask you to explain your inane comment just to be sure I read it correctly and you repeated it
I have no intention of taking you through the implications of what you wrote, QQ. Own it, or don't. I really couldn't care less.which is incorrect because I wrote that there were at least two perspectives emerging and what is more my perspective isn't among them.. not yet any how..
No avoidance of that argument, QQ. Not the first time, not the second.So you avoided the argument by launching an attack on my person... a straightforward AAH not only once but twice.
When you call me out on an actual bona fide AAH, QQ, I will welcome it. It will show you are at least starting to learn. As to your AAH, if you don't think it is, great, continue to not think it is and move on.There are many threads where you resort to this strategy and you simply dislike being called on it...7 pages and counting and that is just for one AAH* that isn't even an AAH.
Then try stop side-tracking yourself with trying to score points.What I am attempting to explore is why they do it?
So the very key to your post being a AAH and you refuse to consider it's implications? Is that it?I have no intention of taking you through the implications of what you wrote, QQ. Own it, or don't. I really couldn't care less.
yet you posted a 200 odd word diatribe of nonsense to get the actual issue at hand.I have no intention of taking you through the implications of what you wrote, QQ. Own it, or don't. I really couldn't care less.
you would realise the rest of your post is an exercise in vitriolic futility...I have no intention of taking you through the implications of what you wrote, QQ. Own it, or don't. I really couldn't care less.
Night night, QQ.I generally just ignore you for a while, and let your attention focus on someone else. Usually works.![]()
It is always necessary, in your case, to quote rather than paraphrase.I have quoted, numerous times, such that it shouldn't have been necessary,
Without the explicit or specific cause, in this and similar contexts.You do know what "effectively" means, right? It means to have a certain result.
It wasn't explicit, and it didn't make an ad hominem argument out of those posts. See post 140.It is the intention (explicit in this case) to avoid those points, thus this makes it an ad hominem.
In theory, it may be possible to "rebut" a point without mentioning it or referring to it or even acknowledging its existence. But we were discussing a specific case, in which the person was being avoided for cause and the points they were pretending to make were irrelevant.You hopefully agree that the rebutal of points via an irrelevant comment about the one who made them is an ad hominem? Well, rather than a rebuttal, it is sufficient for it not to be a rebuttal but the avoidance of them. Not the person entirely, but the points.
"The rest of your post" is not equivalent to "just those points" - the worth or validity of whatever points may or may not have existed in "the rest of your post"was not mentioned. For all one can tell from the text, there were no points in the rest of the post - they certainly were not addressed, and no conclusions were drawn about their worth.They have sought to avoid those points, not the poster entirely. Just those points. That is what the explicit words written are: "rest of your post". Not "you", not "all of your subsequent posts", just "rest of your post". Got that yet? Need it quoted yet again?
It is not explicit in QQ's posts. That's why you have had to attempt paraphrasing every time you tried to make the argument.I have specified numerous times, and it is explicit in what QQ said at the time, which has been quoted numerous times now.
If one avoids the bullshitter (partially or entirely or any other way you try to drag in) rather than the points they raise, no ad hominem argument exists. That is the case here.If one avoids the bullshitter entirely then you are correct,
"Them"?And your continued agenda against a certain political faction is tiresome in its irrelevancy here. We get it. You don't like them. Move on already!
The collapse into one line of personal attack, without even the pretense of thread or issue relevance, is stereotypical among the misusers of "ad hom".I didn't think you were capable of laughing? Live and learn...
Don't worry! Sleep well! Your Argument ad hominems ( all of them ) will be there archived for the foreseeable future...and you can address them later...if not with me but with the help of someones else...I really should learn to abide by my own advice...
Night night, QQ.
Get over yourself, iceaura. You knew what was being referred to, given the number of times it has been quoted.It is always necessary, in your case, to quote rather than paraphrase.
It's rude to force other people to waste time and bandwidth correcting your paraphrases, when the quote is ready to hand. It may also save you much error and muddle - you tend to believe what you have typed
No mindreading required. If A leads to B leads to C, A effectively leads to C. No mindreading required.Without the explicit or specific cause, in this and similar contexts.
Unfortunately, the explicit and specific cause is what you needed to avoid displaying - once again - your habit of reading minds instead of texts.
It was, and it did. Post 140 doesn't help you here.It wasn't explicit, and it didn't make an ad hominem argument out of those posts. See post 140.
No, the "rest of your post" was being avoided. Read what was posted. Don't mindread. "Rest of your post". Not the person. "Rest of your post". I.e. the points within the rest of my post, given that that is what the "rest of your post" contains.In theory, it may be possible to "rebut" a point without mentioning it or referring to it or even acknowledging its existence. But we were discussing a specific case, in which the person was being avoided for cause and the points they were pretending to make were irrelevant.
And since you were wrong then, it remains wrong now, whichever post you refer back to.This was explained to you 100 posts ago, in post 140.
And I beg to differ. If you answer half the points and then choose to ignore the other half... is or is that not avoidance of the points. Had it been a case of "I will not respond to you" then you'd be on to something. Alas."The rest of your post" is not equivalent to "just those points"
While I beg to differ on this as well, avoidance is sufficient.- the worth or validity of whatever points may or may not have existed in "the rest of your post"was not mentioned. For all one can tell from the text, there were no points in the rest of the post - they certainly were not addressed, and no conclusions were drawn about their worth.
No need to quit when the paraphrasing doesn't alter the analysis. But thanks for your concern.And that exchange illustrates the reason you should quit paraphrasing.
The points were being avoided, not the poster. Read what he wrote. "The rest of your post", not "you". No indication that he is seeking to avoid me rather than my post. Avoidance of the rest of the post, the points within. No mindreading required.Meanwhile: The poster was being avoided in a particular context, one in which they post bullshit and troll folly. That is all that is needed - none of the "entirely" bs belongs here.
"Rest of your post". Not the person, the points within the rest of the post. Not the poster. Explicit.It is not explicit in QQ's posts. That's why you have had to attempt paraphrasing every time you tried to make the argument.
"Rest of your post". The points within. No explicit mention of avoiding the poster, just the "rest of your post". Are you mindreading again?If one avoids the bullshitter (partially or entirely or any other way you try to drag in) rather than the points they raise, no ad hominem argument exists. That is the case here.
"your faction"? Care to explain what you think "my faction" is?"Them"?
It is directly relevant here, your faction.
Oh, wow, you really do think that incorrect identification of argumentum ad hominem is mainly from those on one side of a certain debate, of which "my faction" is the guilty party thereof? Seriously? Not only am I curious as to what you think "my faction" is, but I'm also curious as to what it is that "my faction" must have done to you for you to be so naive in your agenda and bitterness toward them. Did they shoot your dog?It comprises the bulk of the otherwise mysterious well-educated "ad hom" illiterates, and appears to be an inculcated tactic - that, the matter of "why", is directly relevant to the OP.
No. I'm just intrigued as to what you think "my faction" is, and why you have such a bitter agenda against them that it seems that you are trying to attack them at every possible opportunity.Have you forgotten the OP?
Ironic, methinks. But we'll confirm that when we bottom out what you think "my faction" is....if you were capable of learning about other people, you would have by now.
And comparing that with the paraphrase you posted and substituted, recommended that you give up paraphrasing altogether.Get over yourself, iceaura. You knew what was being referred to, given the number of times it has been quoted.
As noted so often, with dozens of examples of similar evidence over the years, everything after the word "if" in a rightwingies post is normally bullshit.No mindreading required. If A leads to B leads to C, A effectively leads to C. No mindreading required.
Then you can have no reason to avoid dealing with the quote, rather than a paraphrase - an explicit quote would need no paraphrase.It was, and it did.
Without the slightest reference to its contents, or any "points" it may or may not have contained - as is recommended for dealing with bullshit. See post 140.No, the "rest of your post" was being avoided.
It is not, in this case.If you answer half the points and then choose to ignore the other half... is or is that not avoidance of the points.
That is an error - a mistaken comprehension of what an ad hominem argument is.While I beg to differ on this as well, avoidance is sufficient.
All your paraphrases here are inaccurate. All of your analysis here is based on your paraphrases, not the original posts. All your arguments are based on that analysis, and thus those paraphrases. The ordinary term for that fallacy is "strawman".No need to quit when the paraphrasing doesn't alter the analysis.
Prelim, because you will never learn,Oh, wow, you really do think that incorrect identification of argumentum ad hominem is mainly from those on one side of a certain debate, of which "my faction" is the guilty party thereof? Seriously?
Unreasonable request given that the paraphrase was entirely adequate for purpose.And comparing that with the paraphrase you posted and substituted, recommended that you give up paraphrasing altogether.
Irrelevant. For that to apply here one would need to actually be a "rightwingie".As noted so often, with dozens of examples of similar evidence over the years, everything after the word "if" in a rightwingies post is normally bullshit.
Garbage. When the intention is writ large in the actual post there is no mindreading involved. This has been explained, and you have, once again, simply ignored both the explanation and what was originally posted. The intention was explicit.You are mindreading, in this thread, every time you use the word "intention". Among other instances.
And given that it has been posted numerous times already, that everyone knows what it is, which one is being referred to, you are requesting something that simply is not necessary.Then you can have no reason to avoid dealing with the quote, rather than a paraphrase - an explicit quote would need no paraphrase.
Doesn't need to have reference. Avoidance of the points is the key thing.Without the slightest reference to its contents, or any "points" it may or may not have contained - as is recommended for dealing with bullshit. See post 140.
In this case, as with every other case as worded, it is.It is not, in this case.
No, it's not. It is an argument he put forward ("given...") with the explicity intention of avoiding the rest of my post - i.e. the points within. Deal with it, or don't. I could no longer care less.That is an error - a mistaken comprehension of what an ad hominem argument is.
All paraphrases are by definition inaccurate compared to the original. But they are sufficient in terms of the getting the key points across.All your paraphrases here are inaccurate.
Bollocks. Quite simply bollocks, iceaura. Even if you ignore the ones you think have been paraphrased, the same analysis has been repeated ad nauseam using the actual explicit post that was made. Maybe if you bother to read what is written, and take off the blinkers you're clearly wearing.All of your analysis here is based on your paraphrases, not the original posts. All your arguments are based on that analysis, and thus those paraphrases. The ordinary term for that fallacy is "strawman".
Yes, I've paraphrased to highlight the relevant parts, and the correct parts. Happy?Prelim
...
blah blah blah
...
thread.
That's how replying to posts usually work: you post, I read, I reply, you read, you reply etc. Were you expecting some different arrangement?You just now bothered to read one of my posts, before replying?
No, it is "a certain debate" - i.e. the debate about (typically American) politics (as opposed to, say, the best colour of a car). That is what you are describing when using "rightwing", and "American 'conservative'". No mindreading involved. No paraphrasing here. Yet still you have not supplied any evidence of this almost complete overlap you attest to. At the moment it seems simply to be a case of you classifying anyone you disagree with as a "rightwingie", or an "American 'conservative'". Do you care to, or is your obvious bitterness going to be left unsupported and simply for everyone else to bear?For possibly the hundredth time: Of course. Yes. And not "a certain debate" - the pattern covers dozens of threads and issues, and several common terms (mostly as used for personal insult and denigration.)
You can post it as many times as you want, it doesn't make it any more correct. You can post it a hundred times, all strenously, all with equal bitterness, but unless you can actually support your claim, it will be ignored for the smell of bullshit that emanates so pungently from it.As posted dozens of times before, by me: The misuse of "ad hominem {argument}" in these several co-relevant issues is so firmly and positively correlated with one set of political/economic views as to be a useful field mark. When corrected for education and economic class - general literacy, which one expects would forestall such particular illiteracies - the correlation is nearly an identity.
If you can support the correlation you are so keen to make, and that your bitterness relies on, sure. When you do that, your "who" will have weight. If you can use the "who" without all the bullshit you're surrounding it with, as merely an example to explore the "why", then no problem. To unsupportedly claim an almost complete overlap such that there is only one "who" to consider would be laughably absurd.An explanation of "why" should account for "who", surely.