31 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHthis demonstrates a continued and perhaps wilful misunderstanding of the concept of the 'ad hominem fallacy'. there is no a priori rejection of GB's, or anyone else's posts. if X posted something like 'Y is good', and i posted something like 'Since X says Y is good, and X is a fool, Y cannot be good', i would be guilty of a kind of ad hominem fallacy, or genetic fallacy. however, to merely claim that X is misrepresenting the truth, or that their post is 'spun' is not to commit the fallacy.
In his surprisingly open post over in the "I Just" thread, Blackamp illustrates almost to the letter the point of this thread. Here, Blackamp is describing his wholesale rejection of GB's posts on the basis of his knowledge of that which informs GB's posts. Note the italicized portions:
[quote]i would characterise it rather as a keen interest in dis-c ...[text shortened]... mind justified by virtue of what he perceives as the deceitfulness of the efforts.
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by BlackampNot unlike the rest of your posts, you get it without getting it; spending all kinds of time in the forest and yet you never see the trees.
this demonstrates a continued and perhaps wilful misunderstanding of the concept of the 'ad hominem fallacy'. there is no a priori rejection of GB's, or anyone else's posts. if X posted something like 'Y is good', and i posted something like 'Since X says Y is good, and X is a fool, Y cannot be good', i would be guilty of a kind of ad hominem fallacy, or ge ...[text shortened]... misrepresenting the truth, or that their post is 'spun' is not to commit the fallacy.
This post was made for you, my friend. Tailor-made with you in mind, and not a single other person beside you. You have shown a repeated and consistent abhorrence for all things GB-related, and, quite frankly, it comes across as more than a little, um, imbalanced. Kinda creepy, really.
The idea behind this post was that perhaps it is possible to commit oneself to an ad hominem attack and still have the attack be about ideas; namely the ideas behind the person presenting the ideas in view. Or, in this case--- if my speculation was correct--- your obsession in rejecting all things GB may really be about ideas... just not the ideas he was presenting. Your post in the "I Just" thread was nearly a complete admittance of just this concept.
In my subtle way, I was giving you an out: an opportunity to elevate your anti-GB stance by calling it a rejection of ideas instead of what it appears to be--- a hard-on against someone you despise for reasons you don't understand and cannot explain.
But that wasn't good enough for you, for some odd reason. Given an out, you refuse to take it; instead you repeat almost verbatim the concept, state it is your policy and at the same time insist it isn't what you do.
I think it's time you reach out for some professional help.
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHyou are clearly out of your intellectual depth. if you mean to say that i have an anti-crap stance, then yes, i have an anti-crap stance. and, as i have said before, if someone posts crap in a public forum, they just have to accept that they may be criticised for doing so. you seem to think that one particular poster ought to be exempt.
Not unlike the rest of your posts, you get it without getting it; spending all kinds of time in the forest and yet you never see the trees.
This post was made for you, my friend. Tailor-made with you in mind, and not a single other person beside you. You have shown a repeated and consistent abhorrence for all things GB-related, and, quite frankly, it ...[text shortened]... ist it isn't what you do.
I think it's time you reach out for some professional help.
the point you so wilfully fail to see is that GB is irrelevant - a good post is a good post, no matter who posts it. and obscurantist, pompous poop is just that, whoever posts it. there's not an ad hominem fallacy within sight.
what you are not being honest enough to come out and say is that you think criticism of GB = criticism of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, and that gets you excited. that's what you mean by the veiled term 'ideas behind the person presenting the ideas in view'. well, the owners of the site created a spirituality forum for people who want to talk about that, so take it there Spanky, and take your evangelising friend with you. you can discuss the ancient war in heaven there.
Originally posted by Blackampyou are clearly out of your intellectual depth.
you are clearly out of your intellectual depth. if you mean to say that i have an anti-crap stance, then yes, i have an anti-crap stance. and, as i have said before, if someone posts crap in a public forum, they just have to accept that they may be criticised for doing so. you seem to think that one particular poster ought to be exempt.
the point you so and take your evangelising friend with you. you can discuss the ancient war in heaven there.
Clearly.
if you mean to say that i have an anti-crap stance, then yes, i have an anti-crap stance. and, as i have said before, if someone posts crap in a public forum, they just have to accept that they may be criticised for doing so.
No, I mean to say what I have said. Namely, you have an obsession with one particular poster, that, despite the content, despite the context, you will always and forever reject anything this poster puts forth.
you seem to think that one particular poster ought to be exempt.
Actually, I find it odd that you have only been able to find one particular poster upon which to spew your invective.
the point you so wilfully fail to see is that GB is irrelevant - a good post is a good post, no matter who posts it. and obscurantist, pompous poop is just that, whoever posts it. there's not an ad hominem fallacy within sight.
And, as you so eloquently stated previously, you're not speaking to his posts, you're speaking to his sneaky, Trojan-horse style of worming ideas into the mind of the collective--- you know: that unsuspecting group upon whose behalf you are so tirelessly laboring. The truth is, GB is your intellectual superior and you are incensed by the fact that you have been thus far unable to meet him on the same level, to expose him for the supposed fraud that you take him to be... all because the tools you have at your disposal are inferior. Thus, you attack the person. Repeatedly.
what you are not being honest enough to come out and say is that you think criticism of GB = criticism of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, and that gets you excited.
Again you err. GB is as far from fundamentalism as you are close.
that's what you mean by the veiled term 'ideas behind the person presenting the ideas in view'.
'Veiled?' The whole idea was speculative in nature, purposely vague in order to find application along many perspectives. That you would pick up on GB's belief system is curious.
well, the owners of the site created a spirituality forum for people who want to talk about that, so take it there Spanky,
I recently posted a thread entitled "Playing dead people," wherein I wondered aloud how a player could begin games with people who hadn't moved in over nine years. The Forum Moderator moved my thread to the Chess Only forum. If the Forum Moderator considered my thread not suitable for GF, it isn't too far of a conclusion to assume they would be capable of diverting GB's posts to Spirituality, were they to smack too much of the dreaded God talk. It appears your radar is set just a touch too sensitive to the topic. That, or maybe you just see God everywhere, Butt-wheat!
you can discuss the ancient war in heaven there.
Don't tell me, let me guess: you're a reformed Christian, yourself! That would essplain quite a bit.
01 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHyour main problem is that you haven't done your homework at all thoroughly. you have just leapt into GF half-cocked and you are making a fool of yourself. i suppose you will continue to misrepresent what i have said either wilfully or from a lack of reading comprehension skills, or both, so i don't really feel the need to repeat myself for your benefit. go back and read the original posts carefully.
[b]you are clearly out of your intellectual depth.
Clearly.
if you mean to say that i have an anti-crap stance, then yes, i have an anti-crap stance. and, as i have said before, if someone posts crap in a public forum, they just have to accept that they may be criticised for doing so.
No, I mean to say what I have said. Namely, you have an guess: you're a reformed Christian, yourself! That would essplain quite a bit.[/b]
bottom line: post crap in a public forum, expect to take cop some flak.
and if you want to do GB a service, explain in detail why you think his posts are so great, with examples. that attempt is something noticeably lacking in the efforts of the Christian pro-GB lobby (basically you, Rusty, and that black-hearted scoundrel Ice). pick a few that i have specifically criticised, and defend those.
PS: oh, and you still don't get the 'ad hominem fallacy'. in fact, you have fallen into the same error as the pompous one often does, which is to try to bluff that he knows about or understands something his words make clear he plainly does not have much knowledge or understanding of.
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by Blackampyour main problem is that you haven't done your homework at all thoroughly.
your main problem is that you haven't done your homework at all thoroughly. you have just leapt into GF half-cocked and you are making a fool of yourself. i suppose you will continue to misrepresent what i have said either wilfully or from a lack of reading comprehension skills, or both, so i don't really feel the need to repeat myself for your benefit. go ...[text shortened]... something his words make clear he plainly does not have much knowledge or understanding of.
I like to think of myself as a quick study.
you have just leapt into GF half-cocked and you are making a fool of yourself.
As opposed to you, for instance: fully cocked and all, being made a fool by others?
i suppose you will continue to misrepresent what i have said either wilfully or from a lack of reading comprehension skills, or both, so i don't really feel the need to repeat myself for your benefit. go back and read the original posts carefully.
Or even from my willful lack of reading comprehension skills. No one needs you to repeat yourself, as your tack is virtually always the same. Just like the old 'tickle the dog right here' trick, everyone knows what to expect nearly every time GB either creates a thread or makes a new post: you, the forum traffic cop telling everyone to 'keep moving, there's nothing to see here.'
bottom line: post crap in a public forum, expect to take cop some flak.
Bottom line: adhere to a policy of unreasoned harassment, expect to take some flak.
and if you want to do GB a service, explain in detail why you think his posts are so great, with examples.
Funny, I don't recall saying his posts were 'great.' I do recall indicating that I considered them thought-provoking and encouraging of conversation along multiple lines. The great ones are the posts from me.
pick a few that i have specifically criticised, and defend those.
That's just the thing, Blackamp. There's no need to pick a few of them; they're all the same in nature. You attack and say he's full of crap without ever speaking about the topic at hand. Pick, pick, pick at how he's such a bore and blah, blah, blah... but never anything about why and certainly never anything about the topic raised.
PS: oh, and you still don't get the 'ad hominem fallacy'.
Yeah. While it is truly possible that I don't, I think between not understanding it and always feeling the need to resort to it, I'd pick the former over the latter every time.
in fact, you have fallen into the same error as the pompous one often does, which is to try to bluff that he knows about or understands something his words make clear he plainly does not have much knowledge or understanding of.
Help! I've fallen and can't get up!
If there is anyone here doesn't understand, it is you. You neither understand the concept which I've introduced, nor the fact that you can't figure out if you're coming or going.
01 Feb 10
Against my better judgement, I will offer but one example of Blackamp's never-ending battle against all things GB. Over in GB's latest thread, he offered the most innocuous post, a simple question that anyone should be able to relate and respond to.
Blackamp's first post to the thread?
are you so very desperate to find someone to agree with you?
Thanks for making my homework so much easier, little buddy.
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBH<sigh> in fact, that post is a great example of the vacuous nature of Grampy's posts in general. it asks if we can agree that we won't know until we find out. may as well ask if we can agree that anything crimson is also red. since Grampy seems to be going to great lengths to find (and clutter up the forum with) a proposition empty enough that everyone can agree to, the question of whether he is so very desperate to find such a proposition is a natural and sensible one.
Against my better judgement, I will offer but one example of Blackamp's never-ending battle against all things GB. Over in GB's latest thread, he offered the most innocuous post, a simple question that anyone should be able to relate and respond to.
Blackamp's first post to the thread?
are you so very desperate to find someone to agree with you?
Thanks for making my homework so much easier, little buddy.
back to the drawing board.
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by BlackampNo, actually, he drew you out and exposed you in a undeniable way. I think the kids are calling that p'owned, or some such.
<sigh> in fact, that post is a great example of the vacuous nature of Grampy's posts in general. it asks if we can agree that we won't know until we find out. may as well ask if we can agree that anything crimson is also red. since Grampy seems to be going to great lengths to find (and clutter up the forum with) a proposition empty enough that everyone can ...[text shortened]... perate to find such a proposition is a natural and sensible one.
back to the drawing board.
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHso you're denying that Grampy's question was vacuous?😵
No, actually, he drew you out and exposed you in a undeniable way. I think the kids are calling that [b]p'owned, or some such.[/b]
"we'll never know until we find out". yep, wisdom of the ages there. well worth a thread - not. and so par-for-the-course.
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by BlackampFor a person who thinks before emoting, it is a question that could easily produce no small amount of conversation. For instance:
so you're denying that Grampy's question was vacuous?😵
"we'll never know until we find out". yep, wisdom of the ages there. well worth a thread - not. and so par-for-the-course.
Do we know something only by experience, or is there any other way of knowing something?
What is 'discovery?'
What is 'know?'
See? All kinds of cookies in that little nugget.
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHif you want to have a discussion about the nature of knowledge, both a priori and a posteriori, or about whether there is synthetic a priori knowledge, or about whether the analytic-synthetic distinction is valid, or anything along those lines, that's fine.
For a person who thinks before emoting, it is a question that could easily produce no small amount of conversation. For instance:
Do we know something only by experience, or is there any other way of knowing something?
What is 'discovery?'
What is 'know?'
See? All kinds of cookies in that little nugget.
but don't expect meaningful input from Grampy. that's why i responded the way i did to the question, rather than picking apart the question itself. no matter how cogent the criticism of one of his posts, he'll just try to stonewall with some 'blah blah noted' kind of rubbish.