Bhassler wrote:Bodywork wrote:Really? Compared to which other.. Great wrestlers...you have tried to throw?
Your assessments and abilities are based on exactly... What?
You are such a self-important fucktard. Don't you ever get tired of yourself?
Bhassler wrote: attacking the person
Dmitri wrote:Bhassler wrote: attacking the person
By what, asking about their experience?
The only personal attacks on that thread were from you, Brian. Go back and read again. Bodywork asks iwalkthecircle on what kind of experience his assessments are based. Bhassler calls Bodywork nasty names.
however, if anyone has any doubt that you are utterly full of shit, they can go to any of a number of websites that detail some of the most common fallacies and knock themselves out.
yeniseri wrote:I have mentioned this a few times but anyone who knows they can equal or better a certain master, they need to politely request an audience and civilly show skills that are worthy of being an exponent.
That being said, I am shocked that so many people complain than are able to conduct themselves to secure, or put themselves in a way to test the ones they claim are false master, as I appear to understand. That is why I like people like the Amazing Randi! There is $1 million dollars there, free money, as it is, for people to collect but it seems they are afraid of the money. Just sayin'
A guide for the perplexed! Moses would be proud of me
Placebos play an important role in research as controls to test the efficacy of medical interventions; a pill or procedure can only be considered effective if it works better than the placebo. But should placebos be part of actual treatment? Is a doctor who prescribes a sugar pill – even if it works to lessen symptoms – technically deceiving the patient? - See more at: http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2012/05/0 ... lIWdT.dpuf
Dmitri wrote:What I say (in this respect) has very little to do with whom I know or met in person. I'm looking at what people actually write. At least I try to.
"You are a racist bigot" is pure ad hominem, no question about it. What they perhaps meant was "what you wrote was racist bigotry". There's a fundamental difference between these statements.
As for "not commenting" -- I don't have a set of "commenting rules" or a list of people to whom I respond more than to others.
"You are a racist bigot" is pure ad hominem
Steve James wrote:"You are a racist bigot" is pure ad hominem
Only when it is used as an argument. Someone's argument is not wrong "because" the one arguing is a racist or a bigot or a "friend." Someone we like can be wrong, and vice versa. Of course, it also depends on what one is claiming to be right or wrong.
Afa this ongoing thing between Dan and some others, I'd say that it was more a matter of the way attitude is perceived online. Hey D, I know that you remember the Mike S. stuff from way back in alt-rec-martial arts I've never met him or Dan, but they're probably both nice guys. At the same time, their style of making their points can irritate some people, in particular those they haven't met. Oh well, it's the internet, and it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Now, personally, I always wanted to know if Mike and Dan had ever met and what they thought of each other's work. It was interesting to hear. In a way, I was hoping they'd agree. Again, oh well. Everybody seems to say the same thing about what "it" is, "who" has it, and "how" one can tell.
what I wrote :Only until this is addressed I dont see a way that any one would be able to take a reasonable approach.
your response:
So, you don't see how anyone could be reasonable. Ok. Can reasonable people act unreasonably? Are you trying to convince people to act that way? Cuz, in my mind, unreasonably means anything goes. I think terrorists act unreasonably. Anyway, I'd bet you'd say that any suggestion you made would be reasonable, iyo. Right?
Well, if you actually made an argument, then I might consider some of the things I said ad hominems. I.e., you've stated positions on a group, and I've disagreed that the whole group should be condemned. In logic, you're arguing from "particular to general." That's a basic fallacy. It's like me making a case about all Americans because of what some of them do. It's what the people you condemn do, as well. Fortunately, not all of them.
That's for the logic part. The bigot part (since I'd never call you a racist) is simply a description. Google the definition.
Well, if you actually made an argument, then I might consider some of the things I said ad hominems. I.e., you've stated positions on a group, and I've disagreed that the whole group should be condemned. In logic, you're arguing from "particular to general." That's a basic fallacy. It's like me making a case about all Americans because of what some of them do. It's what the people you condemn do, as well. Fortunately, not all of them.
Prejudging an individual by their group identity (or presumed group identity) is not only unethical, it is blatantly irrational, since group identity reveals absolutely nothing about a person. Every individual should be judged only on the basis of their own words and deeds.
Treat the ideology with caution and candidness. Treat the Muslim as an individual.
Don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know, and don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam.
Anyway, not to get too far off off been there done that territory, arguing about the way a person argues is also NOT an argument
Return to Been There Done That
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests