PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>>chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>If I state you are wrong because (i) you're premise doesn't support
>>>your concusion and (ii) you are stupid, I have committed an ad hominem.
>
>> Not really.
>
> Absolutely.

Well, I can see what you're saying, but it still doesn't work that
way for me. I guess because you seem to be positing an artificial
construct that I don't see in the real world; what people actually say
is of the form "this fool's argument is illogical".
The description of the fool, or the logical failing may be expanded
apon, but that's all irrelevant.

Perhaps I'm just so immune to the insults that I can't see them as
bolstering a real argument in any way. To me, it's purely when there is
*no* real argument that the abuse has taken the form of logical error:
any other additions are simply entertainment for the crowd.
An entertaining argument is not illogical.

To me, pointing out the ad hominem as you originally used it
amounts to a strawman attack: facing up to only the weakest points in
your opponents argument, rather than taking on the meat of it.

<snips: FALSE; if (insult) then (ad hominem)>
> I never said that.
> I never said that.

You agree with me then. All is as it should be.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd68ajm.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> > What about the part where a fallacy only appears *if and only if* a
> > discussion of the speaker is used as 'evidence' *against his
> > arguments* DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
>
> I understand that you keep claiming that, but it simply is not true.
> Formal fallacies comprise those errors that indicate a flaw in
> reasoning, but informal fallacies

Ahem. "*Informal* fallacies"?
Caught you!

Go home, Bradd. You've just been caught equivocating. Another fallacy.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd68b7q.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Bradd wrote:
> >> When the insults are co-mingled with the reasoned part of the argument,
> >> and they provide the bulk of the actual text, I claim that they most
> >> certainly are part of the argument.
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > So now, the "bulk of the actual text" is the only standard for whether
> > or not something is an argument.
>
> Even if you ignore everything else I've written on this subject, and
> rely entirely on the out-of-context quotation above, you'll find that I
> mentioned at least /two/ standards.

*I* notice that you seem to have snipped the bulk of the post again,
which in its entirety proved you wrong.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <argument>
> The correct question is which ones *are* - those that are parts of
> arguments that make the credibility of the speaker an issue as to whether or
> not the things he says are correct.
> The incorrect things you argue, and the things you blatantly
> misunderstand, prove you are a moron.
> Asserting that because you are a moron, your arguments are (or just "may
> be") incorrect ... now we've got a credibility attack.
> </argument>
> <rhetoric>
> It's just that easy, fatass.
> Can't you figure it out?
> </rhetoric>

Heh, you have this quaint idea that "rhetoric" is not part of the
"argument." You might want to read through a catalogue of the informal
logical fallacies (which includes argumentum ad hominem), many of which
specifically deal with the rhetoric that often appears "in addition to"
the main argument.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd68bgs.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Here's a funny. On the same website where Goslin mungled his
> > definition of Ad Hominem, there appears ...
> >
> > "Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument): .....
> > There is a strange variant which shows up on Usenet. Somebody refuses
> > to answer questions about their claims, on the grounds that the asker
> > is mean and has hurt their feelings..."
>
> Note that these pleas do not purport to support the main point, but
> merely to distract from the counter-argument -- yet it's still
> considered a fallacy. You're hung by your own petard.

No, Bradd.
"This person's arguments are irrelevant because they are mean" is not a
*distraction*; it's the same error as "this person's arguments are
irrelevant because they are a fascist".

My *gods*. CAN YOU GET ANY GODS DAMNNED THING ABOUT AD HOMINEM RIGHT?

-Michael

 

[drow]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> write:
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd68b7q.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
>> Bradd wrote:
>> >> When the insults are co-mingled with the reasoned part of the argument,
>> >> and they provide the bulk of the actual text, I claim that they most
>> >> certainly are part of the argument.
>>
>> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>> > So now, the "bulk of the actual text" is the only standard for whether
>> > or not something is an argument.
>>
>> Even if you ignore everything else I've written on this subject, and
>> rely entirely on the out-of-context quotation above, you'll find that I
>> mentioned at least /two/ standards.
>
> *I* notice that you seem to have snipped the bulk of the post again,
> which in its entirety proved you wrong.

i dunno about anyone else, but the sexual tension in this episode
is killing me.

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: Putting new limits on productivity.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"drow" <drow@bin.sh> wrote in message
news:42643315$0$190$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> Alien mind control rays made Michael Scott Brown
> <mistermichael@earthlink.net> write:
>> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd68b7q.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
>>> Bradd wrote:
>>> >> When the insults are co-mingled with the reasoned part of the
>>> >> argument,
>>> >> and they provide the bulk of the actual text, I claim that they most
>>> >> certainly are part of the argument.
>>>
>>> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>> > So now, the "bulk of the actual text" is the only standard for whether
>>> > or not something is an argument.
>>>
>>> Even if you ignore everything else I've written on this subject, and
>>> rely entirely on the out-of-context quotation above, you'll find that I
>>> mentioned at least /two/ standards.
>>
>> *I* notice that you seem to have snipped the bulk of the post again,
>> which in its entirety proved you wrong.
>
> i dunno about anyone else, but the sexual tension in this episode
> is killing me.

Heh.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:47:47 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> There are generalities that apply, and the characters would be able to apply
> the generalities. There are, of course, exceptions to the general rules,
> but there is a reason they are called "exceptions".
>
> I suppose it's POSSIBLE that these berries are the exception rather than the
> (general) rule, but then we're talking about something that is pretty hokey
> and exceptional, that is, perhaps something worthy of basing an adventure or
> encounter upon.

The berries cause rage, they are already exceptional.

> Yes, many berries aren't round, but many ARE round, which would lead to the
> only possible generality that might be misleading. I, for one, have NEVER
> eaten a berry that had an even REMOTELY egg-like shell, and I would think
> that my experience as a "human" would probably mirror the "human life"
> experiences of characters, even in a fantasy world.

Lychees. I'm not sure if that's the correct spelling (actually
transliteration, I suppose).

> You know, meat tastes
> like meat, except human meat, which tastes like chicken, etc. 😉

More likely it tastes like pork, or McDonalds.

> Tastewise, I haven't eaten
> > enough different berries (the one peoiple normally eat are rather
> > atypical of berries in general - much sweeter for one) or raw eggs to
> > know what the range of flavours you could expect is.
>
> Well, I've had my share of berries(even the tart ones), and I've had my
> share of undercooked eggs from a variety of sources. Berries share a fairly
> typical common consistency, taste aside, that slightly chalky texture is
> fairly common to all berries.

Slightly chalky? Tomatos aren't. Chineese Gooseberries aren't (of
course they are called Kiwifruit now, so maybe they no longer count).
Good juicy wild black-berries aren't. Cape Gooseberries aren't.

> Whereas, most uncooked eggs share a viscous
> consistency, simply by virtue of the structure and makeup of the egg.

You're using 'most' quite a bit. That means you're conceeding that
some berries and some eggs don't fit the pattern.

> Even if I had not tried the egg or berry of the particular brand you tried
> to blind-taste-test me on, I am quite confident that I would be able to tell
> which was a berry and which was an egg, even if I wasn't able to identify
> the particular egg or berry involved. This is the kind of knowledge that I
> refer to, and I expect all characters that would have had their share of
> eggs and berries would likewise be able to do the same thing.

Hmm. Be interesting to see if you can tell fish roe from ink weed
berries.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:25:14 +1200, Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
scribed into the ether:

>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:47:47 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
><autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> There are generalities that apply, and the characters would be able to apply
>> the generalities. There are, of course, exceptions to the general rules,
>> but there is a reason they are called "exceptions".
>>
>> I suppose it's POSSIBLE that these berries are the exception rather than the
>> (general) rule, but then we're talking about something that is pretty hokey
>> and exceptional, that is, perhaps something worthy of basing an adventure or
>> encounter upon.
>
>The berries cause rage, they are already exceptional.
>
>> Yes, many berries aren't round, but many ARE round, which would lead to the
>> only possible generality that might be misleading. I, for one, have NEVER
>> eaten a berry that had an even REMOTELY egg-like shell, and I would think
>> that my experience as a "human" would probably mirror the "human life"
>> experiences of characters, even in a fantasy world.
>
>Lychees. I'm not sure if that's the correct spelling (actually
>transliteration, I suppose).

Cranberries have a very hard outer shell, comparable to other berries.
Harder than most chicken eggs I've seen.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 18 Apr 2005 21:04:42 +1200, Robert Singers
<rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Jeff Goslin said
>
> > *sigh* Yes, I know, it's a fantasy world, and there are lots of wierd
> > and wacky stuff that CAN happen. But in *MY* fantasy campaign world,
> > there is a level of "normalness" that is based at least somewhat on
> > reality. Steel is hard, wood splinters, water is refreshing, food
> > tastes just like it does to us if it's made of the same basic stuff,
> > up is up, down is down, and yes, berries taste like berries, and eggs
> > taste like eggs.
>
> Even the eggs of a Dragon turtle, or any magical or abberant creature? No
> egg would be found with a large resivoir of food in the form of sugar.

It also means no berries with oils in them. Now, that's more the
province on nuts and the seeds in the berries, but I see no reason why
some berries couldn't be oily.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 18 Apr 2005 18:43:02 +1200, Robert Singers
<rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Rupert Boleyn said
>
> > Yeah, I know it's a team, but only David is credited for the earlier
> > works. As for _Polgara_, I liked it, but didn't finish it, which
> > suggests I found it dragged towards the end.
>
> or that you were too busy going to parties n stuff.

If I preferred parties to reading it, I definitely found it to be
boring.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>>>> When the insults are co-mingled with the reasoned part of the
>>>> argument, and they provide the bulk of the actual text, I claim
>>>> that they most certainly are part of the argument.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>> So now, the "bulk of the actual text" is the only standard for whether
>>> or not something is an argument.

>> Even if you ignore everything else I've written on this subject, and
>> rely entirely on the out-of-context quotation above, you'll find that
>> I mentioned at least /two/ standards.

> *I* notice that you seem to have snipped the bulk of the post again,
> which in its entirety proved you wrong.

You attempted a reductio argument. It did not include insults co-mingled
with reasoning. Therefore, you did not disprove my claim. In fact, your
attempt was a fallacious appeal to absurdity, another one of your
favorite informal fallacies.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:34:15 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Strawberry?
> Blueberry?
> Boisenberry?
> Raspberry?
> Blackberry?
> Cranberry?
>
> None of those things tastes even remotely like the other. Of that list,
> only boisenberries and blackberries even remotely resemble each other or
> anything else. Distinct in form, distinct in flavor, distinct in
> texture...even a fairly wide variety of color.

Actually raspberries, blackberries, and boisenberries are fairly
similar in appearance (enough to see they are related, anyway), or at
least the things we attached those names to are.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:27:52 +1200, Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
scribed into the ether:

>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:34:15 GMT, Matt Frisch
><matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> Strawberry?
>> Blueberry?
>> Boisenberry?
>> Raspberry?
>> Blackberry?
>> Cranberry?
>>
>> None of those things tastes even remotely like the other. Of that list,
>> only boisenberries and blackberries even remotely resemble each other or
>> anything else. Distinct in form, distinct in flavor, distinct in
>> texture...even a fairly wide variety of color.
>
>Actually raspberries, blackberries, and boisenberries are fairly
>similar in appearance (enough to see they are related, anyway), or at
>least the things we attached those names to are.

There are differences enough. Pull a raspberry off the vine, and you get a
fairly sturdy cone with a hollowed out base. Pull a blackberry off and you
get a squishy, solid, semi-conical amorphous lump. The seed chambers of a
blackberry are considerably larger than a raspberry, and of course the
colors are quite different. My father has a photograph of a bowl full of
different breeds of raspberry, ranging from almost pure white to dark red,
with oranges and purples in between...none of 'em could be confused with a
blackberry.

The point remains however, saying that "berries are berries" is exceedingly
disingenous when there is so much variety to be had.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news😛iq7615dhskavg8lq5v6897mjiro9g6r0v@4ax.com...
> The point remains however, saying that "berries are berries" is
exceedingly
> disingenous when there is so much variety to be had.

The point being made was not that berries are berries, but that a person
would be able to tell the fundamental difference between a berry and an egg.
Berries have "berrylike" qualities. Eggs have "egglike" qualities. A
person would be able to say X is a berry and Y is an egg, from a very
GENERAL perspective. As noted before, there are a wide variety of both
berries and eggs, but the two things, despite being internally different and
composed of a wide variety of possible choices, the simple fact remains that
eggs and berries share little in common.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ru-dnQHNRM5cqfnfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:UbW8e.8553$An2.7793@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > <argument>
> > The incorrect things you argue, and the things you blatantly
> > misunderstand, prove you are a moron.
>
> Thank you for so clearly demonstrating the ad hominem fallacy. Inside
your
> delineated argument tags, no less.

Goslin, there really is no end to your incompetence. That was not ad
hominem fallacy. Not even close. Your continued insistence that anything
you find insulting is a fallacy is only so much *horseshit*. On top of
that, you corked yourself up on an *example*.

I also notice you snipped the context and remainder of the post without
comment. Do you have something to say about the arguments, Jeffie? Or was my
prediction that you're going to be a little pussy again dead-on?

-Michael
________________________________
<argument>
The correct question is which ones *are* - those that are parts of
arguments that make the credibility of the speaker an issue as to whether or
not the things he says are correct.
The incorrect things you argue, and the things you blatantly
misunderstand, prove you are a moron.
Asserting that because you are a moron, your arguments are (or just "may
be") incorrect ... now we've got a credibility attack.
</argument>

> At least you admit that sometimes you do intend to attack credibility.

<argument>
FALLACY!!!!
The set of {comments about an interlocutor} includes the set of
{comments by MSB about interlocutors} and the set of {comments that are
attacks on credibility}. Recognizing the breadth of the set includes the
second category - as I did in my post - does not in any way concede that
{comments by MSB about interlocutors} and {comments that are attacks on
credibility} are sets that *overlap*.
You have just done this:
Premise: A = B OR C (not an xor, just an or)
A, C
Therefore: B
</argument>
_________________

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8LW8e.8572$An2.620@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > The incorrect things you argue, and the things you blatantly
> > > misunderstand, prove you are a moron.
> >
> > Thank you for so clearly demonstrating the ad hominem fallacy. Inside
> your
> > delineated argument tags, no less.
>
> Goslin, there really is no end to your incompetence. That was not ad
> hominem fallacy. Not even close. Your continued insistence that anything
> you find insulting is a fallacy is only so much *horseshit*. On top of
> that, you corked yourself up on an *example*.

You can deny it all you want, throw up your smoke screen and pout like a
petulant little child, but the simple fact of the matter was that you
EXPLICITLY used an ad hominem attack. It's there in black and white. If
you wanted to be logically correct, you would have said something about the
incorrect things I argue showing that I don't know how to argue, NOT that
they show I am a moron.

Unfortunately for you, you drew the fallacious conclusion that I am a moron,
NOT that I don't know how to argue. Simply put, you attacked the speaker,
not the argument. It is so clearly ad hominem it can't be more clear if I
drew it in neon colors and highlighted it.

> I also notice you snipped the context and remainder of the post
without
> comment. Do you have something to say about the arguments, Jeffie? Or was
my
> prediction that you're going to be a little pussy again dead-on?

Of course I have nothing to say about your arguments, because your arguments
are bluster and foam. There is no point in arguing with you over your
bluster and foam, because any argument about your bluster and foam will
simply be replaced by more bluster and foam. Instead, I'll snip, and wait
for the next wave of fallaciously horrendous bluster and foam. With that, I
anxiously await your sopping reply.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Rupert Boleyn said

>> Even the eggs of a Dragon turtle, or any magical or abberant
>> creature? No egg would be found with a large resivoir of food in the
>> form of sugar.
>
> It also means no berries with oils in them. Now, that's more the
> province on nuts and the seeds in the berries, but I see no reason why
> some berries couldn't be oily.

Some of the NZ native tree berries taste like kerosene 🙂

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> I understand that you keep claiming that, but it simply is not true.
>> Formal fallacies comprise those errors that indicate a flaw in
>> reasoning, but informal fallacies ....

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Ahem. "*Informal* fallacies"?

Yes. Like all other fallacies of relevance, ad hominem is an informal
fallacy. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Formal fallacies are types of deductive argument that instantiate an
invalid inference pattern (see deduction; validity); an example is
affirming the consequent: If A then B; B; therefore, A. Informal
fallacies are types of inductive argument the premises of which fail
to establish the conclusion because of their content. There are many
kinds of informal fallacy; examples include /argumentum ad
hominem/ .... [1]

The informal fallacies include many, like the red herring, which exist
even when they merely distract from the main argument, rather than
replacing it whole. The ad hominem fallacy is a specific kind of red
herring, based on a prejudicial but irrelevant personal attack.

> Caught you! Go home, Bradd. You've just been caught equivocating.
> Another fallacy.

How is it equivocation when we've been discussing an informal fallacy
all along? Or did you not know that? It looks more like you've been
caught with a barrel of lemon juice.

[1] http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9364182
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:siY8e.8275$yq6.6021@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> We had example #1:
> "The incorrect things you argue, and the things you blatantly
> misunderstand, prove you are a moron."
>
> Premise: People who make incorrect assertions and misunderstand basic
> concepts are morons (if A & B then C)
> (Jeffie) makes incorrect assertions (A)
> (Jeffie) blatantly misunderstands basic concepts (B)
> Conclusion: (Jeffie) is a moron. (C)

You conclude that one is a moron because one makes incorrect assertions and
misunderstands basic concepts. First, the conclusion does not follow.
While one MAY be a moron, it's certainly not the only possible conclusion.
Second, the conclusion is a direct implementation of the ad hominem fallacy,
in that you attack the speaker instead of the argument. Had you attacked
the argument instead of the speaker, you might have been correct, but (as
usual) you didn't.

> There is no attack on credibility associated with this comment about
the
> speaker; because no argument by (Jeffie) is even at issue!

Actually, you make the argument in your premises. You argue that I make
incorrect assertions and blatantly misunderstand basic concepts. The
conclusion drawn is an attack on credibility, not a support of the
assertions made.

Any potentially
> unpleasant conclusions about (Jeffie) are simply a matter of following
from
> the premises - there is *no possibility* of ad hominem fallacy being
> invoked.

Wrong, again. You made assertions, then drew fallacious conclusions that
did not follow the argument, AND, to top it all off, made an attack on the
speaker.

And again, until you decided to make it all about you, Jeffie, the
> passage in question was part of a *comparison* of what would and would not
> be an ad hominem attack on the credibility of the speaker, where 'you' -
now
> replaced by (Jeffie) - could have been anyone!

Again with the misdirection. In case your mind is so adled that you can't
remember how we got here, I'll remind you: We got here because you decided
to have a hardon for me.

> We have established that not *all* comments about a person are
> credibility attacks.

We have also established that the only real exception to ad hominem is when
the credibility of the person is pertinent to the argument. That means that
UNLESS the credibility of the person is intrinsic to the argument, any
personal attack to the credibility of the speaker(as you always do) is ad
hominem.

> > Unfortunately for you, you drew the fallacious conclusion that I am a
> moron,
>
> Please explain why it is a fallacy to conclude that you are an idiot,
> based on your posting behaviour here.

Because you have no evidence to back it up. You bluster around, call people
idiots and morons, and believe that this makes it fact. You drew a
conclusion that I am a moron based on your own faulty interpretation and
personal propaganda. Basically, you're believing your own hype.

> Really? So, ahh... Jeffie? Where is the bluster and foam here?

The bluster is in the argument itself, in EVERY instance. Your logic is
faulty NOT because of the line of the logic, but because of the things you
put in for the variables. You make so many logical mistakes, albeit not
COMPUTATIONALLY logical mistakes, but so many OTHER logical mistakes that it
is literally impossible to find a place to start.

You have the computational order of the "or", "not", "xor", "and" gates
correct, but your expressions are what fails in your logic. You assume that
because your computation is correct that your premises are correct, and they
almost NEVER are.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The semantic detail is irrelevant- you chose to treat something that
> WAS NOT AN ARGUMENT as if it were! You keep making this mistake,
> seeing rhetoric as if it were an argument.

You keep making this mistake, thinking that the rhetorical parts of an
argument are not parts of the argument. In particular, many of the
informal fallacies specifically deal with the rhetorical part of the
argument. You're flaunting your ignorance again.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>> "A lawyer should bear in mind that ad hominem comments frequently
>>> are unpersuasive, increase the level of personal antagonism, and
>>> tend to diminish public respect for lawyers and the courts.[1]"
>>>
>>> Ie; the reasons personal attacks are to be avoided *in general* IN A
>>> COURT OF LAW are as listed above.

Bradd wrote:
>> And one of those reasons is the logical invalidity of ad hominem
>> arguments.

> Equivocation fallacy again. The discussion is of ad hominem *comments*
> - intended to refer to personal attacks in this context -

Since when does "ad hominem" refer to anything but the fallacy, in any
context? And what part of "unpersuasive" did you not understand?

> However, the quote you cited is a discussion of *courtroom* *conduct*

This and the other sources I quoted discussed both the uncivil and the
illogical nature of ad hominem fallacy.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
> Can you [MSB] at least step back, *critically* think about it, and
> acknowledge that you *might* be wrong?

Judging by past behavior, no, he can't.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd68ed0.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> > Caught you! Go home, Bradd. You've just been caught equivocating.
> > Another fallacy.
>
> How is it equivocation when we've been discussing an informal fallacy
> all along? Or did you not know that? It looks more like you've been
> caught with a barrel of lemon juice.

Quite true. Ad hominem is such obviously incorrect reasoning I always
assumed it lived in the formal category.
Mea culpa.

Amazing, what intellectual honesty looks like, isn't it?

Try it some time, bitch.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd68eh9.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > The semantic detail is irrelevant- you chose to treat something that
> > WAS NOT AN ARGUMENT as if it were! You keep making this mistake,
> > seeing rhetoric as if it were an argument.
>
> You keep making this mistake, thinking that the rhetorical parts of an
> argument are not parts of the argument.

The strawman continues!

-Michael