Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum - You’re not entitled to your opinion

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

(Dec 14, 2016 03:18 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yet you, among others, often defend your opinion with nothing more than how you subjectively feel. And then you get upset when I don't accept that as justification. Yes, after you've resorted to ad hominems, I do disrespect those who have disrespected me. But no doubt, you'll never go look to see that pattern.

Not so. I’m fine with it. What I don’t like is your loaded questions and unfounded accusations. I can handle that, too, as long as you don’t feel entitled to a response, but you do, and then you start rating everyone in a juvenile manner.

Do you remember the time when she twisted something you said, and then kept implying that you were a pedophile, and demanding that you defend yourself? You pull the same shit time after time. Your questions start out as ad hominems.

But no doubt, you'll never go look to see that pattern.

(Dec 14, 2016 03:31 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]
(Dec 14, 2016 03:18 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yet you, among others, often defend your opinion with nothing more than how you subjectively feel. And then you get upset when I don't accept that as justification. Yes, after you've resorted to ad hominems, I do disrespect those who have disrespected me. But no doubt, you'll never go look to see that pattern.

Not so. I’m fine with it. What I don’t like is your loaded questions and unfounded accusations. I can handle that, too, as long as you don’t feel entitled to a response,

Prove it. Show me where. Show me:
1. Loaded question
2. Unfounded accusation
3. Entitled to a response

Quote:Do you remember the time when she twisted something you said, and then kept implying that you were a pedophile, and demanding that you defend yourself? You pull the same shit time after time. Your questions start out as ad hominems.

But no doubt, you'll never go look to see that pattern.

Who is "she" and where is this implied pedophilia? I've looked.
Show me a question that starts out an ad hominem.

Go ahead, teach me.

(Dec 14, 2016 05:43 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Prove it. Show me where. Show me:
1. Loaded question
2. Unfounded accusation
3. Entitled to a response

One loaded question coming right up.

See any ad hominems or accusations in here?

Syne Wrote:No, empathy involves the process of comparing sense data to your own feelings of the recognized state. Gathering that sense data is completely independent of empathy. Since you seem to lack self-awareness of the simplest emotional cognition, I'm starting to doubt whether you truly feel empathy. It's sounding more and more like you're being defensive because you're a sociopath (or Aspie) insecure with his facade.

So you think arriving at a conclusion is just information gathering? You sound more belligerently ignorant with every post.

(Nov 2, 2016 12:26 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So...after she derailed this thread into a discussion of abortion, SS seems to have silently slunk away again. I guess it's only fun if you think you're scoring points, huh? Sure seems that it was one too many difficult questions to arduously avoid. Go have yourself a spa day and recover, SS.

I’ve never been to a spa, but apparently you felt entitled to a reply.

Syne Wrote:Who is "she" and where is this implied pedophilia? I've looked.
Show me a question that starts out an ad hominem.

Eew! Pervert.

Syne Wrote:Then the forum search function is broken, because it only finds your post and those that quoted your post. So unless you can show otherwise, I have no choice but to assume you're lying. And you can hardly call me a liar for assuming something you refuse to support. So you're not only a liar, you're intellectually dishonest and using unsupported ad hominems as well. So go ahead, prove I'm lying about you making that quote up. I dare you. And if you can't, you own me yet another apology.

Did you apologize for your erroneous assumption? Hell no. You simply justified it.

A new members shows up and you immediately start giving her negative ratings.

(Oct 2, 2016 08:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]But, in this instance I was replying to CC and I *thought* we were merely having a dialogue.

She was right. They were having a casual conversation and exchanging information.

And here we have another new member met with welcoming arms.

Syne Wrote:Nice sob story. While I have no doubt that it may be completely true, I fail to see the point of interjecting it here, other than as an attempt to draw sympathy. Why would you even expect sympathy from strangers? And why would you expect it to have any weight in a discussion you assert is science?

I didn’t see that as a ploy for sympathy. I thought she was simply saying that a well thought out response takes time and that she was having to deal with a few real life issues at the moment.

C C has put in a lot of effort to keep this place afloat. I, too, prefer casual conversation, but if you want to go bare knucks with me, I’m down, just ease up on the newbies. Dodgy

(Dec 12, 2016 10:48 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Then I'd probably drop the class, since I don't think that I like this guy.

I can't imagine enrolling in one of his classes in the first place. He's a 'continental' philosopher whose specialty is Soren Kierkegaard, and my philosophical interests are pretty solidly in the 'analytical' direction.

Actually the entire Deakin (an Australian university in the Melbourne area) philosophy department seems to specialize in 'continental' philosophy, judging from recent books their faculty have written.

https://blogs.deakin.edu.au/philosophy/r...losophers/

Perhaps my incompatibility with this philosophy department is a good thing, since I just viscerally dislike this Stokes guy. He seems like a total jerk. The last thing that I'd want is to be one of his students.

His personal website is devoted to little besides how much he thinks various political ideas and individuals suck. He seems to have a particular hard-on for some Australian Senator whose libertarian views he loathes. His sarcasm and his assumption of his own intellectual superiority are omnipresent.

http://www.patrickstokes.com/

So much for not being entitled to opinions. It obviously doesn't apply to him.

And ironically, the OP in this thread linked to another in the endless series of 'Trump Sux' opinion pieces in left-leaning opinion magazines, this one from an online publication called 'Quartz'.

(Dec 14, 2016 03:24 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]
(Dec 14, 2016 05:43 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Prove it. Show me where. Show me:
1. Loaded question
2. Unfounded accusation
3. Entitled to a response

One loaded question coming right up.

"A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt)." - wiki
He has made shit up before, so was the assumption wholly unjustified? You can go look. Usually when I call him on his shit, he shuts up...leading me to believe it happens often. Rolleyes

Quote:See any ad hominems or accusations in here?

Syne Wrote:No, empathy involves the process of comparing sense data to your own feelings of the recognized state. Gathering that sense data is completely independent of empathy. Since you seem to lack self-awareness of the simplest emotional cognition, I'm starting to doubt whether you truly feel empathy. It's sounding more and more like you're being defensive because you're a sociopath (or Aspie) insecure with his facade.

So you think arriving at a conclusion is just information gathering? You sound more belligerently ignorant with every post.

Context deary:

MR wrote:
" I'm wondering if you've ever empathized with anyone yourself. It seems so foreign to you. Maybe that explains all the hateful bile you spue online. This disturbing inability of yours to understand people emotionally."

Like I said, "I do disrespect those who have disrespected me." But I assume you won't be able to see the similarity in his post and my reply. Rolleyes

Quote:
(Nov 2, 2016 12:26 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So...after she derailed this thread into a discussion of abortion, SS seems to have silently slunk away again. I guess it's only fun if you think you're scoring points, huh? Sure seems that it was one too many difficult questions to arduously avoid. Go have yourself a spa day and recover, SS.

I’ve never been to a spa, but apparently you felt entitled to a reply.

Really? So I'm not allowed to comment on the lack of reply? How does commenting on the deafening silence obligate you to reply in any way? I never feel entitled to anything, much less from anonymous strangers on the internet. Maybe you do. I have no idea. I would never assume that anyone, with any number of posts, could possibly get me to do anything I don't want to. So I'm a bit baffled why you would.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Who is "she" and where is this implied pedophilia? I've looked.
Show me a question that starts out an ad hominem.

Eew! Pervert.

Wow, two years ago on a different forum. Ah, the memories. Weren't you banned from there?

I went and read that again. I didn't see anyone imply I was a pedophile (just assume I was implying they were), nor demand I defend myself. Have you had your coffee yet today?

Oh wait, she may have implied something in a later post. But whatever she intended to imply, I took it that she was warped enough to think ill of people concerned with the welfare of children. I ignored it, like anyone is free to do.

Rolleyes

Quote:
Syne Wrote:Then the forum search function is broken, because it only finds your post and those that quoted your post. So unless you can show otherwise, I have no choice but to assume you're lying. And you can hardly call me a liar for assuming something you refuse to support. So you're not only a liar, you're intellectually dishonest and using unsupported ad hominems as well. So go ahead, prove I'm lying about you making that quote up. I dare you. And if you can't, you own me yet another apology.

Did you apologize for your erroneous assumption? Hell no. You simply justified it.

LOL. He made a claim he refused to support until I resorted to that. IOW, had he just said, "here it is", he wouldn't have justified the assumptions. But I suppose I can make any claim I like and you'd accept it without any push back whatsoever, huh? Rolleyes

Quote:

A new members shows up and you immediately start giving her negative ratings.

(Oct 2, 2016 08:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]But, in this instance I was replying to CC and I *thought* we were merely having a dialogue.

She was right. They were having a casual conversation and exchanging information.

Again, where are these supposed rules you imagine exist for the rating system? As far as I can tell that was the first time I'd even used the ratings system, and some of the subsequent negative ratings were given over the response, unjustified by any forum rules, that I was misusing it.

Quote:And here we have another new member met with welcoming arms.

Syne Wrote:Nice sob story. While I have no doubt that it may be completely true, I fail to see the point of interjecting it here, other than as an attempt to draw sympathy. Why would you even expect sympathy from strangers? And why would you expect it to have any weight in a discussion you assert is science?

I didn’t see that as a ploy for sympathy. I thought she was simply saying that a well thought out response takes time and that she was having to deal with a few real life issues at the moment.

So...I'm not allowed to perceives things other than how you do? She didn't even come close to implying a fuller response may be forthcoming, but she did offer an ultimatum about "or don't post here at all". Without the ultimatum, it might not have seemed like a sympathy ploy to me.

Quote:C C has put in a lot of effort to keep this place afloat. I, too, prefer casual conversation, but if you want to go bare knucks with me, I’m down, just ease up on the newbies.

Do me a favor. Go look at the member list, and sort it by post count. What do you see? Forums only survive due to participation.

Quote:Usually when I call him on his shit, he shuts up...leading me to believe it happens often.

No..I usually quit responding with you at the point that you start insulting me and backpeddling on what were your original positions. I don't waste my time with such equivocating bullshit.

(Dec 14, 2016 11:58 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Usually when I call him on his shit, he shuts up...leading me to believe it happens often.

No..I usually quit responding with you ...

Like I said.

I know all of that, Syne. That’s why had your back, but I’m not asking for much.

(Dec 15, 2016 12:28 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]I know all of that, Syne. That’s why had your back, but I’m not asking for much.

Had my back? Where? What are you asking for?

(Dec 14, 2016 03:24 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Just ease up on the newbies.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9