You’re not entitled to your opinion

(Dec 15, 2016 02:03 AM)Syne Wrote:

(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.

Had my back? Where?

This may be just another ultimatum. Ease up on the newbies or you'll keep trying to poison the well. So is "had your back" just a false olive branch?

(Dec 15, 2016 05:13 AM)Syne Wrote: Had my back? Where?

"Put on your big girl pants."  "Handle it yourself or walk away." Isn't that basically the same thing as...

Syne Wrote:If you're going to post on the internet, you need a thicker skin than that.

---

Syne Wrote:This may be just another ultimatum. Ease up on the newbies or you'll keep trying to poison the well.

Poisoning the well?  Was I really that far off the mark?  

(Oct 2, 2016 07:52 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: He doesn’t seek out arguments for their sake.  He seeks out arguments for his sake.  

You’re basically saying the same thing here, right?  You are seeking arguments for your own sake.

(Oct 2, 2016 08:22 PM)Syne Wrote: Since it's obvious you have erroneous assumptions, I'll tell you. I debate with others to hone my own thinking. I'm not seeking validation, as many on these sorts of forums seem to desire. I'm disappointed when I can't find challenging arguments, and I'm disappointed when I find inconsistent reasoning on a "science" forum.

I'm here to have my biases challenged.

---

Syne Wrote:So is "had your back" just a false olive branch?

An olive branch?  Oh, hell no!  

Friendship is a commodity, is it not?  Social media has basically taken our desire for this commodity, and turned our desire for friendship into a commodity itself, but you’ve already made it perfectly clear that you’re not here to make friends.  

It’s called negotiating, deary.  

You want a challenge and I want you to ease up on the newbies.  

We need more members. If you want an echo chamber of "look what I can do", create a blog.  

How 'bout this?  If you offer your own little "heads up", I wouldn’t have to.  Add a signature or change "Senior Member" to something like "Rich Rhetoric".  No, wait…I know, better yet…"Master Debater".  

Hey, if I'm not entitled to an opinion then I won't bother giving one. Oh wait, this is one of life's funny little conundrums, isn't it?  

There is a difference between arguing points of an issue, and insulting or disrespecting people. I have been told a very insulting exchange of words between posters, is just friendly interaction that has been going for a long time. It is my impression that this kind of social bantering is more common for males than females who might understand the words as hurtful insults instead of friendly banter But there is also a difference between what can be said in an established relationship and saying the same thing when there is no established relationship. The quality of relationships plays a very big role in how people understand each other.

Bottomline, in forums, most often the problem is a social one. It is more a matter of being offensive than the intellectual error explained in the OP. Anyone who doesn't believe this and thinks the problem is not knowing how to argue facts, should try stating arguments in a respectful way and see what happens. Fortunately, I can only get 3 negative points for making this argument, but it could lead to an improvement in my experience here. On the other hand, it could lead to someone searching for my post and creating reasons to give more negative points as I have been experiencing ever since saying I do NOT read past being offended and refusing to engage with this person until the offensiveness stops.

This is an ad-hoc argument "Since it's obvious you have erroneous assumptions". It is not a respectable argument.

Quote:Explanation of the Ad Hoc Fallacy. Strictly speaking, an ad hoc fallacy probably shouldn't really be considered a fallacy because it occurs when a faulty explanation is given for some event rather than as faulty reasoning in an argument. ... The Latin ad hoc means "for this [special purpose]."Mar 4, 2016
Ad Hoc Explanations, Causes, and Rationalization
atheism.about.com/.../Ad-Hoc-Explanations-Causes-and-Rationalization.ht...

An argument should be on the topic not a critical statement about the other person. This is the real intellectual challenge, to rely only on our reasoning of the subject. It is important in the process of reasoning until there is agreement on the best reasoning. Putting people on the defensive shifts the focus from the topic to a personal matter.

Oops!  My "Take some more tea" allegory was a complete overthrow, but now I find myself in somewhat of a paradoxical pickle.  Oh, wait a minute…is it paradoxical or hypocritical?  Hmm…most likely the latter.

Oh, dear! Was that my outside voice?  

Edit:  Hold up...hold up. 

It’s neither.  Why?  Because I don’t have good manners, duh!

Fuckin' "A"!  I knew there was a way out of that one. 

(Dec 15, 2016 08:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Oops!  My "Take some more tea" allegory was a complete overthrow, but now I find myself in somewhat of a paradoxical pickle.  Oh, wait a minute…is it paradoxical or hypocritical?  Hmm…most likely the latter.

"Having good manners yourself doesn't give you license to correct everyone else."

Oh, dear! Was that my outside voice?  

Edit:  Hold up...hold up. 

It’s neither.  Why?  Because I don’t have good manners, duh!

Fuckin' "A"!  I knew there was a way out of that one. 

Well, now do you feel better?   Which one of you won that argument?  

(Dec 15, 2016 11:26 PM)Carol Wrote: Well, now do you feel better?

Do you?  I hope so.  

Carol Wrote:Which one of you won that argument?  

I’m not sure. We’ll see.  He’s pretty predictable.  If I had to guess, I’d say that he won’t even budge.  If he does, it will be a wee bit scary.  You know what they say.  Vengeance is best served cold.  

Have you ever read "What It is Like to Go to War" by Karl Marlantes?  

Fighting is exciting for humans.  He said that combat is the crack cocaine of all excitement highs.

A really religious fella used to have "fisher of men" as his signature.  Think of it as fishing or data mining.  You can learn a lot during online battles.  And that’s what I want, information...and I want more.

The saga continues…

(Dec 15, 2016 02:54 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Dec 15, 2016 05:13 AM)Syne Wrote: Had my back? Where?

"Put on your big girl pants."  "Handle it yourself or walk away." Isn't that basically the same thing as...

Syne Wrote:If you're going to post on the internet, you need a thicker skin than that.

I didn't realize you intended any of that to reinforce anything I had said. I thought it was just your own standalone position. Anyway, if that was part of the intent, I wouldn't ask for or encourage it, but I appreciate it all the same.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:This may be just another ultimatum. Ease up on the newbies or you'll keep trying to poison the well.

Poisoning the well?  Was I really that far off the mark?  

I'm sure you don't consider yourself to be, but poisoning the well is meant to discredit another to any potential audience. I believe any audience has the capacity to judge for themselves, without all this characterization of "he always..." I generally think each argument should largely stand on its own.

Quote:

(Oct 2, 2016 07:52 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: He doesn’t seek out arguments for their sake.  He seeks out arguments for his sake.  

You’re basically saying the same thing here, right?  You are seeking arguments for your own sake.

(Oct 2, 2016 08:22 PM)Syne Wrote: Since it's obvious you have erroneous assumptions, I'll tell you. I debate with others to hone my own thinking. I'm not seeking validation, as many on these sorts of forums seem to desire. I'm disappointed when I can't find challenging arguments, and I'm disappointed when I find inconsistent reasoning on a "science" forum.

I'm here to have my biases challenged.

Absofuckinglutely. You'll notice I never refuted that, but you went on to say, "It’s an immature defense mechanism." So obviously poisoning the well. You don't have to agree with my motives or manor for posting, but you're going to get push back when you openly insult others.

Quote:You want a challenge and I want you to ease up on the newbies.

Look, I get that you think adults need to be protected from the big bad pragmatic man. I'll tell you what. If you don't run to the rescue when they get all huffy about being challenged, I'll size them up, see if they'll admit their not making any fact claims, and move on. Anyone who admits their posts are pure opinion leaves me nothing to refute. But anyone who starts lecturing because I've challenged their reasoning, or lack thereof, has started their own mess.

Big bad pragmatic man! lol!

(Dec 16, 2016 01:06 AM)Syne Wrote: I didn't realize you intended any of that to reinforce anything I had said. I thought it was just your own standalone position.

It was both.

Syne Wrote:You don't have to agree with my motives or manor for posting, but you're going to get a push back when you openly insult others.

Ouch!  I’m bleeding out now.  I’m losing the will to win.
Oh, well, mark it down on your calendar.  You can use it against me next month.  You’re going to need something to give you the upper hand because you, my friend, are not pragmatic.  Stubborn maybe but not pragmatic.