I agree with fossten; it is highly unlikely that you wrote this.
First, there is not a single curse word that has to be censored in this entire post. The language you tend to use throughout all parts of this forum is filled with curse words every few sentences.
Second the level of coherence in this post is well beyond what you have demonstrated in at least the politics/current events section of this forum
I offer an objective opinion towards this groupthink.
You have shown a decided
lack of objectivity throughout this forum. Specifically, you have demonstrated a political prejudice toward all things conservative. And before you try to say the same about me, the type of prejudice I am referring to is very specific; "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts". It is unlikely that you would be anything more then unobjective now.
And you are perpetuating the blatant smear of groupthink among the conservatives on this forum, which suggests, with equal credibility, that there is groupthink on the part of those who are hostile to us conservatives here, which would include you.
However, every time I state this opinion it’s met with a barrage of insults towards my character.
Those "insults" are actually reasonable inferences about your character given your habitual actions on this forum. They are relevant to your credibility. If you can't stand the truth, the problem lies with you. If you think we are wrong in drawing that conclusion, then show us specifically why we are wrong. But quite whining, distorting and smearing.
...even in this thread where I haven’t posted there have been insults to my character.
I am responding to post #33. Besides that post there are 4 other posts by you in this thread; posts 5, 23, 25 and 31.
Obviously, this is making me apathetic towards posting. So what am I to do?
Leave and don't let the door hit you on the way out. This forum would be much better off without you trolling, smearing and generally frustrating any debate here.
I now just point out holes in peoples arguments. You may chose to look at them as “potshots” or “trolling”.
You don't point out any legitimate holes in others arguments, you distort there arguments and belittle them. Lets look at a few examples of your pointing out of holes in peoples arguments...
In the "
Communist Party: Off and Running" thread, you attempt to belittle concerns that Obama is a socialist. You call voicing those concerns "beating a dead horse" in post #19. You dismiss any criticism of Obama in post number 23 when you say, "I care that [Obama is] president. Anything anyone else is saying beyond that, is BS". The rest of that post is really incoherent.
In the "
Scientists Closer to Solving the Origin of Life on Primitive Earth" thread, you implied that Mac1 was "weak minded" and imply that a source fossten cited was not credible without giving a reason (proof by assertion fallacy) in post #8. In post #27, you said that fossten could never say anything to you about name calling because he does it (tu quoque fallacy). You then called Mac1 a "dumbass" in that same post.
In the "
Obama poll numbers" thread, you subtly smear Monstermark in post #2 when you say, "This is pretty immature lol. I hate to see people like you voting". You mischaracterize the allusions to Obama being God or Christ in post #15 by falsely attributing them to conservatives when you say, "He [Obama] was though(t) of as the second coming of chirst only by the conservatives". In post #16 of that thread you mischaracterize the Constitution when you say that the the 1st amendment says, "1st Freedom of religion...". in post #22 you mischaracterize fossten when you say, "What your implying is that you're looking at someone and seeing a belief". Throughout this area of the thread, you are also taking cheap potshots at others and baiting; specifically directed at fossten.
That was only three threads and I didn't even go to the second page in any of them.
It is rather clear that your "pointing out holes in peoples arguments" is really irrelevant besmirching, smearing, baiting and mischarcterizing of others and/or their arguments. The closest you are coming to legitimately pointing out any holes in arguments is to first mischaracterize the argument then poke holes in that argument. That is called a straw man argument.
I’ve noticed you do the same from time to time Shag, only with better grammar.
No. There is truth in what I say and no smearing. That is because I actually try to avoid dishonesty in what I post.
Some recent ones (I’ve seen) are “Straw Man” and “tu quoque” and etc. etc. This is called a fallacy.
Are you talking about me pointing out those arguments, or are you claiming I
made those type of arguments? If it is the latter, provide examples please (with links to the appropriate threads).
Shag, all your posts are proof by assertion. All of your threads consist of poisoning the well. Everything you post has been discussed to ad nauseam. You actually don’t contribute anything. Amongst your proof by assertion posts, you may have a developed pseudo-sense of contributing, but clearly, that is false.
If what you say is true, and all my posts are proof by assertion or whatever other type of logical fallacy you want to accuse men of, then you can provide examples. It is very easy to make overly broad and general accusations like that, but all those fallacies have very specific definitions. If what I say is true, you could find some examples I am sure.
Many people have tried to claim that I am making a fallacious argument, but they are always very short on specifics and only talk in vague and overly broad terms. That is impossible to prove or disprove. Show me the pattern you are talking about.
I try to be very careful with what I say and not make fallacious arguments, if I have made one, I want to know about it so that I can either correct the argument, or correct that habit. So, please, give examples.
However, in the interest of fairness, provide links to the thread where I made the fallacious argument, give me a quote of the argument I am making that you think is fallacious, name the specific fallacy you are accusing me of and give me the number of the post in that thread where I made the supposed fallacious argument. Is short, do what I generally try to do when pointing out a fallacy; give someone all the info they need to try and reasonably counter that claim if they desire.
I know you’ve been waiting to turn everything I said about you in that post a while ago, where I called out your holier than thou, elitist opinion.
Actually I had forgotten all about it.
But, how can an
opinion be elitist? Elitism is an
attitude.
I did a search for your typical rebuttal towards anyone elses opinion, on any subject, “dishonesty” And “dishonest”. Granted, a lot of the posts were direct towards Obama, but with a staggering result of 230, those could only be so many. This is an example of “Appeal to intellectual and mental stability or capability”
Again, you are talking in broad terms which are not provable or disprovable. If I am in fact making a fallacious argument, as you claim, then it would be in the substance of what I am specifically saying. You are looking at the style of what I am saying. Specifically, you are looking for one word I have used a number of times and concluding that I am making a fallacious argument. That, in and of itself, is a fallacious argument. In fact, it is fallacious in a few ways.
First, it is a fallacious
style over substance argument:
Style over substance is a logical fallacy which occurs when one emphasises the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalising (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument.
There
is no specific argument of mine you are referring to, so there is no content which can be claimed to be fallacious.
Second, it is a
hasty generalization fallacy:
Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence
You are looking at the fact that I have used the word "dishonest" or some derivative thereof and concluding that I am making a fallacious argument. You need more information, specifically an actual argument, to conclude that I am making a fallacious argument.
Third and final, it is a fallacious
irrelevant conclusion:
Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question
You are claiming that I because I some form of the term dishonesty a lot, I am making a fallacious argument. While it is true that I do use that term a lot, it is not true that it proves that I am making a fallacious argument. Only arguments can be fallacious, not actions. You are looking at my actions and concluding that I am making a fallacious argument.
Also, the "fallacy" you cited (Appeal to intellectual and mental stability or capability) is one that was created on wikipedia on
February 14, 2009 by a user called Toussaint. As such, it doesn't have much of an explanation on it's entry, so it is hard to prove or disprove. I dug around a little and have not been able to find any confirmation that it is in fact a legitimate logical fallacy and not something simply made up and put on wikipedia.
When I said you have an elitist ego, I meant it.
I am sure you did. Can you give any proof for that? What is your standard? What characteristics do I exhibit that lead you to reach that conclusion? Or do you simply have a personal issue with me?
Cal is still the only right-wing person I’ve seen actually acknowledge, and on occasion, agree with a different opinion. That’s not an ego, and certainly not elitist. I wasn’t just saying it just to be a dick.
You have to acknowledge an opinion in order to attempt to logically counter it. That is something I do with every post on this forum.
As to agreeing with a "different" opinion, that action alone doesn't prove or disprove that someone is an elitist or has an excessive ego. But I would agree with you; Cal is definitely not an elitist nor does he have an excessive ego.
