28 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidThe reason I opined that you seem to fancy yourself an intellectual, is because you use uncommon, fancy terms that one would expect to come from the mouth of one who fancies himself an intellectual. For example, recently you said you are here to challenge "inchoate and brittle religionist dogmas."
Inchoate and brittle religionist dogmas? Wow. Those are high-level terms.
Then there's the regular use of "clumsy strawman" in your description of things people say that you claim to be incorrect.
People that use grown-up terms like this, either use them among intellectual groups, sipping brandy in fireside chats about deep subjects, or, as I suspect you do, they use them to make themselves appear to be highly-educated, supremely intellectual, and intimidating.
I find your use of these terms to often be out of place and.. ironically.. clumsy in some cases.
As you have been kind enough to point out, I was *mistaken* in believing you to be a deep thinker and an intellectual. You are neither. That case is settled. But, at least now you know why I mistook you to be such. It's because of the way you talk.
[text shortened here]
I bring that up because in this forum, with the grown-up, intellectual, "professional" language you use against your opponents, you are not speaking on our level. Instead you seem to be setting yourself aside as superior and more sophisticated. I don't dare say you are doing anything wrong; I merely say this to make it clear--since you asked--why I or some others may walk away thinking you fancy yourself an intellectual.
As a matter of interest, what is your definition of ad hominem?
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI think sumydid's straw man was obvious and clumsy. As someone posted earlier, "a 'straw man' is nothing more or less than an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position". I have never argued a position like "the molecules in the atmosphere [reflect] other colors as well" in answer to an assertion like "the sky is blue" and then questioning the "integrity" of the poster on that basis. I have never argued a position that is remotely like it. This is a misrepresentation of the nature of my posts and yet sumydid has used it to criticize the nature of my posts.
Can you be clear about this straw man. It may not be as obvious as you think.
Originally posted by FMFAs a matter of opinion, I don't think your interested in my definition of 'ad hominem' at all.
[b]The reason I opined that you seem to fancy yourself an intellectual, is because you use uncommon, fancy terms that one would expect to come from the mouth of one who fancies himself an intellectual. For example, recently you said you are here to challenge "inchoate and brittle religionist dogmas."
Inchoate and brittle religionist dogmas? Wow. Those are llectual.
As a matter of interest, what is your definition of ad hominem?[/b]
However, I will submit another opinion. You ask a lot of "questions," though they are really just transparent rhetorical questions, intended to make a point.
So what was your point in asking that question? Because you are suggesting (without saying it 😉 ) that I posted an ad hominem attack directed against you by honestly answering a question you asked all of us.
Next time, if you don't want me to answer a question, don't ask it openly... say, "I have a question for everyone but sumydid." That way I won't waste both of our time answering it.
Getting back to my alleged "ad hominem attack," all I did was say you use fancy terms... terms so high-level and fancy, that you (willfully or not) portray yourself as an intellectual, seasoned debator and deep thinker.
Assuming that is your charge, which is all I can do when someone asks an obvious rhetorical question, my response is, your charge is false because I was my statement was not only honest, but 100% common sense as well.
Originally posted by sumydidWhy address your perception of my intellect rather than address the things I have said in my posts in response to yours?
As a matter of opinion, I don't think your interested in my definition of 'ad hominem' at all.
However, I will submit another opinion. You ask a lot of "questions," though they are really just transparent rhetorical questions, intended to make a point.
So what was your point in asking that question? Because you are suggesting (without saying it 😉 ) false because I was my statement was not only honest, but 100% common sense as well.
Originally posted by FMFYou are so wrong, and so determined to use this argument, that it's leaning toward outright dishonesty.
I think sumydid's straw man was obvious and clumsy. As someone posted earlier, "a 'straw man' is nothing more or less than an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position". I have never argued a position like "the molecules in the atmosphere [reflect] other colors as well" in answer to an assertion like "the sky is blue" and then questio nature of my posts and yet sumydid has used it to criticize the nature of my posts.
What you are doing is like this:
A believer says sharing the Gospel with skeptics who will obviously discard it, is like "casting pearls before swine."
What you are doing is saying this is a strawman because you have never seen anyone cast pearls, and how dare you be called a pig.
For the last time -- all I did was use a metaphor to illustrate an observation that you will argue almost anything a believer says because you seem to argue for the sake of arguing.
Your effort to whine about the metaphorical terms I used is a blatantly obvious attempt to deflect from my message and label me dishonest.
In fact, your argument against the imagery I used in a metaphor is a completely disingenuous strawman in and of itself.
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidI am not saying this a straw man. I haven't said it's a straw man. You are making stuff up. This is yet another clumsy straw man. The saying "casting pearls before swine" has been put to me countless times on this forum. I have never responded in the way that you say I am or do. Why not stick to the actual things I say in my posts rather than make stuff up and then use your version to criticize the nature of my posts?
A believer says sharing the Gospel with skeptics who will obviously discard it, is like "casting pearls before swine." What you are doing is saying this is a strawman because you have never seen anyone cast pearls, and how dare you be called a pig.
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidYour "metaphor" misrepresented the nature of my posts and the reasons why, and the kind of positions I take when I debate people. Again: a 'straw man' is nothing more or less than an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
For the last time -- all I did was use a metaphor to illustrate an observation that you will argue almost anything a believer says because you seem to argue for the sake of arguing.
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy do you think he is banging on and on and on about my "intellect", about whether I am an "intellectual", or "a deep thinker", or whether I think I am an "intellectual", whether he used to think I am an "intellectual", or whether I am or am not trying to give the impression I am an "intellectual"? Why is he shifting the focus to this do you think?
Is this an example of a straw man?
Originally posted by FMFI am still not clear as to what you believe is ad hominem and what is a straw man. Are you using both at the same time or what? What part of the statements are an ad hominem and what are a straw man?
I am not saying this a straw man. I haven't said it's a straw man. You are making stuff up. This is yet another clumsy straw man. The saying "casting pearls before swine" has been put to me countless times on this forum. I have never responded in the way that you say I am or do. Why not stick to the actual things I say in my posts rather than make stuff up and then use your version to criticize the nature of my posts?
Originally posted by RJHindsI have every reason to wonder if sumydid's incessant discussion of my "intellect" is intended as some kind of attempted ad hominem, while I have been quite clear about how the stuff he made up about blue sky, molecules and the integrity of others is a deliberate fallacy based on misrepresentation of my position, and therefore a straw man.
I am still not clear as to what you believe is ad hominem and what is a straw man.
28 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFOkay, I think I get it. The comment about your intellect is ad hominem because you believe he is attacking you personally and not your agrument.
I have every reason to wonder if sumydid's incessant discussion of my "intellect" is intended as some kind of attempted ad hominem, while I have been quite clear about how the stuff he made up about blue sky, molecules and the integrity of others is a deliberate fallacy based on misrepresentation of my position, and therefore a straw man.
He made up stuff about what you said about blue sky and molecules and the integrity of others, so that he could argue against it, is the straw man.
P.S. He apparently believes you are doing something like that too in your arguments to him.
Originally posted by RJHindsLook, everybody uses straw men and ad hominems occasionally, including me, and you. It's part of how forums and message boards are. But as far as I am concerned, sumydid has based his discussion with me on what he claims is a "metaphor" for a forum post by me that he "expects" me to post, and he has been using what he calls this "imagery" of his to criticize and misrepresent my actual posting record.
Okay, I think I get it. The comment about your intellect is ad hominem because you believe he is attacking you personally and not your agrument.
He made up stuff about what you said about blue sky and molecules and the integrity of others, so that he could argue against it, is the straw man.
Why make something up and then claim he "expects" me to post that when, surely, if he has valid criticisms of my posting style, he could quote a few actual posts instead?
In the meantime, he seems to have tried to shift the discussion to me personally as opposed to my argument with all this stuff about my "intellect" or whether I am an "intellectual" etc. etc. etc.
I wonder whether anyone, apart from you or sumydid himself, has found his approach on this thread rather odd.
He apparently believes you are doing something like that too in your arguments to him.
I haven't questioned his "intellect", not even once, on this thread. And I have been criticizing him for what he has actually said, and not what I "expect" him to say. So I can't see how it can be credibly claimed that I am "doing something like that too".
28 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFSo I guess you believe his statement that "you argue for the sake of arguing against those whom you oppose" is not correct and may be an ad hominem and not a straw man or is it a straw man and not an ad hominem?
Look, everybody uses straw men and ad hominems occasionally, including me, and you. It's part of how forums and message boards are. But as far as I am concerned, sumydid has based his discussion with me on what he claims is a "metaphor" for a forum post by me that he "expects" me to post, and he has been using what he calls this "imagery" of his to criticize and ...[text shortened]... e how it can be credibly claimed that I am "doing something like that too".