On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 13:23:19 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09/04/2013 11:26 AM, Joakim wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:34:42 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09/03/2013 06:33 PM, Joakim wrote:
Sure, but I did provide demonstration, that thread.
That thread seems to demonstrate a failure of communication.
By whom? [...]
When communication fails, there is usually not a single side
responsible for it. (Unless one side is trolling. Trolls are
typically anonymous.)
Except that trolling has nothing to do with communication failure
and one would think those zealots are the ones trolling, despite
using what are presumably their real names, because of how dumb
their arguments are.
"Any" impartial observer would notice the personal attacks,
even if
that observer was completely ignorant of the discussion
topic. "Any"
impartial observer would interpret those as lack of a
well-reasoned
argument and decide to spend his time impartially observing
something
more interesting.
I call it like I see it.
Great.
Except that you then criticize me for "personal attacks" and
name-calling, make up your mind.
An impartial observer can determine if what
you call "personal attacks," more like labeling of the usually
silly or
wrong tenor of their arguments
and what kind of person generally makes such dumb arguments,
are accurate.
How? Accuracy of conclusions of fallacious reasoning is mostly
incidental. Consider googling "ad hominem", "association
fallacy" and "fallacy of irrelevance".
I don't think you know what "incidental" means. :) In any case,
if you can't see that they make several statements that are just
factually wrong, I don't know what to tell you. If you are so
ignorant that you don't even know the facts, there can be no
discussion, which is why I bailed on that thread.
If you want to take a long thread full of arguments about the
topic
and pick out a little name-calling
and then run away, clearly the argument is lost on you.
Frankly, I'm unimpressed. It's you who picked out the
name-calling instead of arguments when summarizing the past
discussion. In case any valuable arguments were part of that
discussion then I'd advise to pick out those instead and put
them in a coherent form.
I called them what they are, zealots, which isn't really
name-calling but an accurate description, and noted one of their
main dumb arguments, so I did both. I'm not going to summarize
that thread for you: either read it or don't. I could care less
either way, because you seem to make almost as many mistakes as
them.
On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 00:25:30 UTC, deadalnix
wrote:
You seem confused by the difference between saying something
and
providing conclusive evidence.
That thread _is_ conclusive evidence. If you think otherwise,
you are
deeply confused.
(Please do not mess up the threading.)
Responses to the two of you are best lumped together. I don't
like it when people like you spam threads with multiple separate
short responses to every other response in the thread. This is
better.
Well, if this kind of simply-minded pseudo-reasoning is to find
resonance, it has to be targeted at a less critical audience.
Except there was little reasoning in my above two sentences, only
two statements about the other thread. The "critical audience"
is not the problem, as you haven't been able to muster a
"critical" response to any actual arguments in that thread. All
you two do is make a bunch of dumb twits about the tone or
character of the other thread, so I'll leave this
"meta-discussion" here, as you two are clearly incapable of
dealing with my actual arguments.
