jGilder wrote:I love the way you defend OutOfBreath's vicious bile with your erudite jingoism. You sound like a defense attorney at Mike Tyson's ear-biting trial. The truth is that OutOfBreath's post was an attack -- plain and simple. He was giving his errant reasoning for dismissing me and my sources. He has a history of attacking me in this forum for what I present, and this was no exception.
I'm pleased that you think me erudite. However, you mistake my intention entirely. I am not particularly interested in defending OutOfBreath's case, except to the extent that I'm pointing out that beneath -his- logical fallacies, there was actually the kernel of an argument, and even that defense is only in the interest in pointing out the fallacies in your arguments. My -entire- point here is that the level of debate here consists of far too much in the way of ad hominems, 'spin', and far too little in the way of any solid reasoning. Nor am solely criticizing you for these flaws, but you responded with arguments to my criticisms.
As far as determining any truth is concerned, you have applied a fine ad hominem to myself, asserted without substantiation that OutOfBreath's post was an errant reasoning, and applied another ad hominem to OutOfBreath.
To be clear here, an ad hominem is not strictly an insult, but an attack on the person rather than the argument. In this case, that OutOfBreath may have an antogonistic history, has no bearing on whether or not what he said was -true- or -not true-.
Technically, calling OutOfBreath's argument 'vicious bile' is more of a unsubstantiated statement in preducial language than an ad hominem.
As to whether or not OutOfBreath's post was an 'attack', I don't think that's in dispute. The question is, was it an attack on your -argument- or an attack on your -person-. I maintain that there were elements of both, that it was not -purely- ad hominem.
jGilder wrote:
Well I think we are in disagreement about what you consider a "logical fallacy" to be. I think your case is weak and your defense of OutOfBreath's attack to be uh... mesmerizing perhaps... but without any real substantiation.
You may wish to review this site then:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Or find another, if you like, there are a number of sites with more or less explanation around the web.
Although an index of them does little good. A course in 'Logic' or in 'Critical Thinking' is probably the best way to first understand logic and logical fallacies.
You are, of course, welcome to point out the specific weaknesses in my arguments. However, I would prefer it if you could refrain from insulting me.
jGilder wrote:
The difference is that the attacks are coming from right-wingers and conservatives for the most part, and challenges are coming from the rest.
I respectfully suggest that one is always inclined to feel offended at any criticism of one's ideas, and one often feels righteously correct when criticising another's ideas. We are, after all, inclined to believe our own ideas are right, and not to offer criticism unless we believe we see an error in another's idea.
I also refer you to 'prejudicial language' on the aforementioned site. I do not understand a difference between 'attacks' and 'challenges' in any denotative sense. Both are being used to mean an argument against a presented point. One has a connatation of violence and unfairness, and the other a connotation of righteous criticism. However, the real test is whether the individual arguments are empty ad hominems, or have some actual substance. (A post of only a laughy-face or rolling-eye face is clearly an empty argument, whether posted by yourself, or IRTradRU, or anyone else.)