|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Aug 1, 2009 10:41:06 GMT -5
I AM CALM! >_< But seriously, I'm not really that angry right now. Not as compared to the Redhunter Fiasco Part II. Also, I didn't mean to tell you to "STFU," but eh, whatever you think is best. Sorry, I wasn't saying you weren't calm at the moment, what I meant was at the time I had said "give it a rest". Also, I know you weren't saying STFU, but I just felt I pretty much had said everything I needed to say, so I was leaving it there. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 1, 2009 11:23:08 GMT -5
Well, I don't think either Dante or I are really "uncalm," it's just that--AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
...Sorry, I just realized that your avatar was winking at me, & now I need to change my pants.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Aug 1, 2009 13:45:39 GMT -5
Starting out with "I can't be the only one to notice" reads like "Help me make my point because I can't do it myself!" Yeah, I took my eye off the ball for a minute toward the end, and that's why I decided to go with "I'm sure you're right" and frankly just let you rage into the wind. You took a hard right turn into ad homing (which means "to the man", by the way, in case you don't know the definition of that one either), and I nearly followed suit. It's one thing to attack the argument. Actually it's the right thing. But having to resort to the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I" or "what's your excuse -- Oooooh, snap!" is just childish. I have no intention of going back to high school with you, hon. Correct me if I am wrong, but is that last sentence not in itself a rather superfluous ad hominem comment? In a comment about ad hominem fallacies that's deliciously ironic, unless of course that was intentional. I see it this way, if it describes accurately what was going on or what someone was doing, it's not an ad hominem, just a fact |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 1, 2009 13:50:12 GMT -5
Correct me if I am wrong, but is that last sentence not in itself a rather superfluous ad hominem comment? In a comment about ad hominem fallacies that's deliciously ironic, unless of course that was intentional. I see it this way, if it describes accurately what was going on or what someone was doing, it's not an ad hominem, just a fact Trouble is, "childish" is a subjective term. I could claim Dante was being "childish" when she accused me of being dishonest & said she was "walking away from the argument" (I'm taking my ball & going home!), but how would I go about proving that? Not the case with hypocrisy, which is pretty damn cut-&-dry: You do it, you tell other people not to do it, you're a hypocrite. |
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Aug 1, 2009 15:12:24 GMT -5
Correct me if I am wrong, but is that last sentence not in itself a rather superfluous ad hominem comment? In a comment about ad hominem fallacies that's deliciously ironic, unless of course that was intentional. I see it this way, if it describes accurately what was going on or what someone was doing, it's not an ad hominem, just a fact Ignoring the point that 'childish' is subjective, the final sentence "I have no intention of going back to high school with you, hon." is clearly not an objective statement, (Yes, I'm well aware that it could be one, but unless you're just going to pretend that pragmatics don't exist then you have to at least realise that is would not be interpreted as one and almost certainly not intended to be one) it is aimed at Lithp to directly apply the "childish" comment from the first sentence to him. At a pragmatic level, that sentence reads "You are childish", regardless of whether you agree or not, that is not attacking his argument, that is attacking Lithp, ergo that is ad hominem. |
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Aug 1, 2009 20:34:52 GMT -5
Why's there so much hate between the members of FSTDT lately?  |
|
|
|
Post by yojetak on Aug 1, 2009 20:45:21 GMT -5
Why's there so much hate between the members of FSTDT lately? When people live together long enough their cycles tend to get on the same schedule. lolz. ps. I hate it when people say things like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 2, 2009 0:10:16 GMT -5
Why's there so much hate between the members of FSTDT lately? You got me. I just figured, "Why fight the shitstorm? It's gonna happen anyway." LET THE SHITSTORM CONSUME YOU! (Gross.) |
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Aug 2, 2009 11:47:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Aug 2, 2009 15:07:11 GMT -5
So please, don't insult my intelligence. Haha. Since you STILL missed the point, I don't think I did. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Aug 2, 2009 17:40:42 GMT -5
I see it this way, if it describes accurately what was going on or what someone was doing, it's not an ad hominem, just a fact Ignoring the point that 'childish' is subjective, the final sentence "I have no intention of going back to high school with you, hon." is clearly not an objective statement, (Yes, I'm well aware that it could be one, but unless you're just going to pretend that pragmatics don't exist then you have to at least realise that is would not be interpreted as one and almost certainly not intended to be one) it is aimed at Lithp to directly apply the "childish" comment from the first sentence to him. At a pragmatic level, that sentence reads "You are childish", regardless of whether you agree or not, that is not attacking his argument, that is attacking Lithp, ergo that is ad hominem. Not quite. I understand what you're saying. But my point was that when you post things like "I know I am, what's your excuse," that kind of argument is childish. I have no plans on going back to high school in terms of rhetoric and getting into an "oh snap" kind of situation. I realize now, though, that Lithp is 17 - ish, and so that can look like I'm saying "you're a kid, I'm not dealing with you." Not quite how I intended to come off, so hope that clarifies things. Admiral Lithp: I'm not interested in getting into a name calling contest, because I find that kind of thing to be largely pointless. I have no intention of making posts just so I can type "You dumbass" in them. Not interested. F&B is the place to vent your frustrations about stuff with other posters/situations, though, so if it helps you, I don't care, as I said, have at it. But I'm not getting into a tit for tat name calling pointless exercise. For one thing, I believe that just exacerbates the situation and makes it more difficult for people to move on and deal with each other on the other boards. I do have one question, though. What did you mean when you said "Death sent me the link?" I linked to the definition in the post. Not sure what you're talking about? Aqualung: As usual, I'm not sure wtf you're bitching about. A whole group of people post about the topic, but you seem to enjoy singling mine out. Not sure why. Sure as hell don't care. If you want to go back into the topic and have the "last word", for fuckssake, nobody's stopping you. |
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Aug 2, 2009 20:32:39 GMT -5
and for fuckssake, I haven't made the argument that there isn't. But there isn't anything legally wrong with it, and I know you're smart enough to know the difference. Please don't allow your personal vendetta against any thread I happen to post in that you happen to be in as well cloud what I've taken obvious pains to say. Since it doesn't seem like you really understand Lithp, the only one getting defensive and pissy here is you, Pay attention to what you're talking about when you want to claim things about how I "conducted" myself. Do you even understand what you're talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Aug 2, 2009 20:34:05 GMT -5
Saying someone is "pissy" and "defensive" totally equals calling them a "twat" or comparing them to "sick fucks".  |
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Aug 2, 2009 20:46:55 GMT -5
So your panties are in a twist because I used a 'bad' word? Which, I might add, apparently isn't forbidden, because others do it all the time. Oh, and who are you claiming I called a 'sick fuck'? I'd really like to know. Which member did I call a sick fuck? Quote me calling a member of this forum a sick fuck.
Get over it, and get your head out of your hypocritical ass if you want any respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Aug 2, 2009 20:56:45 GMT -5
As has already been pointed out to you in the other thread by Bluefinger, so do take the time to actually read before you type, you were saying that anyone who held that point of view was a sick fuck, implying that since Lithp must hold that position, he's a sick fuck.
Incidentally, it's not just any "bad" word. You know the difference, because you're on the other thread bitching about being called a "monkey." Taking a personal shot at a forum member outside of flame and burn is not something we want as a board. Sometimes people go over the line a little. We try not to hand out formal warnings like candy bars. Others most certainly do not call other members of the forum "twats" all the time. They do not imply that other forum members are "sick fucks" all the time.
I don't give two flying shits if I have your "respect" or not. My goal here is not to get "respect" from anonymous internet avatars. Go read the thread you posted in, and you'll find that the majority of the posters there had a problem with what you were saying and how you were posting. Maybe it's easier to take a shot at me because I'm more visible as a poster, whatever. It's not just me having my head in my ass. It's most of the people on that thread having a problem with it too. Why not take shots at them? I guess it's easier to pretend your posting style is my problem rather than your problem. My head's on straight.
|
|
