Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (
More info?)
"MisterMichael" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1113951842.526984.238780@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > And yet, you cannot seem to show us a single one, you *pussy*.
> >
> > Actually, just recently, I actually bothered to show how the "logic"
> you use
> > was incorrect. See the example clearly displaying ad hominem
> recently.
>
> Just one problem, Jeffie. You utterly, completely, and decisively
> *buggered that up*.
Not entirely unexpectedly, and precisely as predicted, you simply ignore the
facts that are presented to you, tell everyone that your opponent is wrong,
without actually showing how that is the case in any way.
You wonder why nobody bothers to correct you, well, it's for this reason
right here. Any real correction is simply ignored and dismissed as wrong.
There is no point in trying to actually argue with you because you refuse to
acknowledge real arguments, and resume your character assassinations.
> > I have, on more than one occassion, you simply refuse to acknowledge
> that
> > such proof has been provided.
>
> No. You have asserted that you *could*, usually after snipping
> pages of arguments that splatter you all over the pavement.
Hehe. You amuse me.
> You have never done so!
I have, just now was simply ONE example. As noted above, you responded with
your standard response of "nuh-uh" and went on the offensive. At least we
can count on your consistency.
> You have claimed the presence of ad hominem fallacies repeatedly,
> yet when pressed we found that your "definition" of such encompasses
> *any* comment about *anyone* under *any* circumstance (given your
> recent mistakes, at any rate- you were closer to correct earlier in the
> discussion). The definition you (mis)use is so broad as to be without
> use. A simple reductio examination of the implications of your
> definition destroys its credibility. A simple examination of the
> sources you use for your overly expansive (and constantly changing)
> definition shows that *YOU MISINTERPRETED THEM*, and committed a major
> deductive fallacy in the process, as Bradd would say it.
No. It is you who has demonstrably misinterpreted the fallacy. Many times
over. Not that you bother to recognize it.
> All you have to do, Jeffie, is take the arguments I've offered
> (labelled and all!) (*in context*), and *show* how they represent
> fallacy-ridden reasoning.
I would bother to do it point by point if I thought it would do any good,
but since it obviously does NOT do any good, I will simply sit back and
watch you flounder.
> Come on, Jeffie! PROVE IT TO THE *NEWSGROUP*. Make your case
Appeal to the masses.
> somewhere besides your own imagination. The arguments are out there.
Ad hominem.
> All you have to do is "destroy them". Here - not in your dreams. If
> you think about it - which you can't - you have committed another
Ad hominem.
> fallacy in your insistence that you don't have to confront the
> arguments because you assert that *I* won't be convinced.
Argument by doggedness.
> One: AM I THE ONLY PERSON HERE? Why should *my* putative
> stubbornness free you from the obligation to support your claims?
You are the only one arguing.
> Two: Appealing the qualities of an interlocutor (such as his
> cruelty, fascism, or stubborness) to dismiss the need to actually
> provide a counterargument supporting your claims that they are wrong is
> AD HOMINEM FALLACY. Ironic, eh? What a clod.
It's not ad hominem when the credibility of the arguer is the focus of the
argument. In this instance, the reason I have been hesitant to engage you
is because you are intellectually dishonest, and refuse to acknowledge
arguments that have merit. As such, it is ultimately your credibility that
is at question(your credibility in responding to an argument in an
acceptable fashion). Therefore, it is a logically acceptable ad hominem.
> PROOF IS ON THE POSITIVE CLAIMAINT. *You* claimed you could destroy
> the arguments that at present utterly obliterate the cause you claim to
> champion.
Burden of proof. You are willing to place the burden on me, but when I
respond with proof, you ignore it.
> Of course, neither you, chris, nor Bradd have been willing to take
> them on, which says rather a lot about who is actually doing the
> blustering here. But that's irrelevant.
Having your cake.
> Seven times now, you've seen fit to discuss without actually
> confronting any of the arguments. Once, you tried to harp at a
> *blatantly* out of context quote, and *still* got the definition of ad
> hominem completely wrong, and now you're COMMITTING AD HOMINEM
> FALALCIES while you make your excuses as to why you get to declare
> victory without doing battle!
You try to declare victory without being INVOLVED in the battle. You fire a
salvo, and then completely ignore the response. No point in trying to
convince you.
> Here's a hint, Jeffie. Stop. You've shamed yourself utterly.
Ad hominem.
> You've made this claim two or three times now. Yet, when given an
> opportunity to highlight which passages of the Big Arguments were
> bluster, you balk at every opportunity. It's not as if they weren't
> just provided to you in a convenient list!
Not so much, actually. Every time I bother, including, I predict, this
time, you will entirely ignore it, or overblow it with bluster.
> Can't you identify the bluster, Jeffie?
> Hmm?
Rhetorical questioning.
> There's a big difference between the grownups here, and *you*,
Ad hominem.
> Jeffie. We can back up our smack. We can *show* the newsgroup exactly
> why you are wrong, and do so repeatedly, with evidence and arguments.
Facts not in evidence.
> You, on the other hand, sit there and pretend that nobody said
> anything, and simply repeat your mistaken positions over and over
> again. No argument. No support. When you do try to offer an argument,
> it is *always wrong* and is quickly dismantled accordingly.
Facts not in evidence.
> Look at you, Goslin! You've been sitting here insisting that an
> unusual berry could not *possibly* be mistaken for an unusual egg in
> real life, much less in a fantasy world with magic (!!!). Why? Because
> you know what eggs are like, and that the shell would be a giveaway...
> Right there, you proved your ignorance to the world (again). Many kinds
> of egg do not have shells. And not all berries (at all stages in their
> growth) are even remotely sweet or berry-like. You are, as usual,
> extrapolating foolishly from a position of complete ignorance.
Exception that proves the rule.
> Jeff Goslin: Wrong about Ad Hominem
>
> Wrong about eggs and berries
>
> Wrong for our country!
Ad hominem.
--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram