ad hominem: defined & refined as applicable to Kong SD page 2

51 posts

Flag Post

Dunno if I’d say there are really “biggest” offenders.
But anyone claiming they aren’t an offender, at least anyone that participates regularly here anymore, is pretty much full of it.

The temptation to flay someone via text is just too tempting to pass up sometimes. :D
I think a little self-regulation goes a long way. I find a break from time to time helps me to forget what a bunch of shitbags I’m usually arguing against, and allows me to re-focus on tearing apart their lack of reason, as opposed to their inferior mental abilities.

/tongueincheek

 
Flag Post

Oh, I too have noticed that not always conservatives lack the ‘civil tone’ in their post… I’m not even sure if it’s entirely justified to make the distinction between conservatives and liberalists in this matter.

I quit the forums in the past because like softest_voice, I also found that my level of civility was decreasing all the time.

 
Flag Post

so that’s why i’ve never seen you before, and hardly ever noticed softest_voice (note irony).

 
Flag Post

Personally, I got out of that thread once the election was over. As once it was over, it became an insult-throwing thread, where those who best defame are highest regarded.

But indeed, some form of ad hominem ought to be mentioned in the forum’s guidelines.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:As I see it, MyTie made a very inappropriate character slur as an argument, and stated (for the fourth post now, across multiple threads) that he has more enjoyment in assassinating my character rather than my argument style.

I’ve thought for a couple of days as to how to respond to this, or even if I’m going to respond to it. I think I’ve come to the conclusion that it is, for one reason or another, completely futile for me to have a discussion with you about anything that we don’t agree on. You addressed me in a thread, and said something about me which I found to be factually incorrect. I tried to explain that it was factually incorrect. You then thanked me for apologizing for what I had done wrong. At that point, I should have just ignored you. It was completely my mistake for thinking anything good could have from addressing it. It won’t happen in the future.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:This likely being the result of “tantrum behavior” on the side of those losing the election.

I didn’t see any of this. There was like… what… three of us, maybe, that were rooting for Romney? I specifically said that I wasn’t bothered by his loss. jnco apologized for being wrong about the upcoming election. I can’t think of who the third person was, but I definitely don’t remember any “tantrum behavior”. I’d consider that to be, ironically, ad hominem against those you disagree with.

 
Flag Post

We need to recant the effigy of our arrogance – namely hubris – if we are to consider the idea of reformation with intent of further purpose

In hindsight of that reasoning, it would seem the problem is a matter of self-discipline in the epicenter of diplomatic debate

Unfortunately, although simple in principle, it is a problem constitutional to the definition of intellectualism and cannot be easily disposed of without resorting to alternate methodology of practice

Perhaps we could establish some detour of voting based on polls

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by simeng:

We need to recant the effigy of our arrogance – namely hubris – if we are to consider the idea of reformation with intent of further purpose

In hindsight of that reasoning, it would seem the problem is a matter of self-discipline in the epicenter of diplomatic debate

Unfortunately, although simple in principle, it is a problem constitutional to the definition of intellectualism and cannot be easily disposed of without resorting to alternate methodology of practice

Perhaps we could establish some detour of voting based on polls

Know your audience. It’s equally inappropriate to read “See Spot Run” out loud to a group of physics students, as it is to read a physics textbook to a kindergartner.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by myTie:I can’t think of who the third person was, but I definitely don’t remember any “tantrum behavior”.

I voted for him, but don’t remember if I mentioned it or not; might have been me.

Originally posted by simeng:

Unfortunately, although simple in principle, it is a problem constitutional to the definition of intellectualism and cannot be easily disposed of without resorting to alternate methodology of practice

What?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:This likely being the result of “tantrum behavior” on the side of those losing the election.

I didn’t see any of this.

Well, DUH.
Most ppl aren’t able to see themselves in anything close to the “bad light” a huge majority of others see them.

There was like… what… three of us, maybe, that were rooting for Romney?

Okay.
Whatever.
I wasn’t quanitfying (< not important to me)..
I was QUALIFYING the spleen being vented on that thread,,,,
and it was//is MY OPINION that the root cause of it was the loss of Romney’s bid for the Presidency.

I specifically said that I wasn’t bothered by his loss.

LOL
Yeah, right…sure…ya gotta a bridge ya wanna sell me?

jnco apologized for being wrong about the upcoming election.

And THAT means exactly…. WHAT?
My “take” on jake-o on this forum is that little-2-NOTHING is “sincere” about him…..
at least to any degree of merit. This is because so much of his ideology is quite…..well, BIZZARE.

I can’t think of who the third person was, but I definitely don’t remember any “tantrum behavior”.

See above: …most ppl aren’t able to see themselves….

I’d consider that to be, ironically, ad hominem against those you disagree with.

Do YOU EVEN KNOW what an ad hominem is?
Addressing the demeanor, behavior, opinions, etc. of those posting on the forum is the purpose of it….as long as it falls w/in the GUIDELINES established by Kong.

Understanding this concept seems to be a huge “foggy area” for (MOSTLY?) the more “conservative” faction here (who knows what the hell Jan is….he “claims” to distractedly neutral…the better to be able to skewer both sides…lol). I’m guessing that such is why so many of their posts are removed….eh?

I, in no way, am saying that “we others” don’t let anger, irritation, frustration, etc get the better of us and blow holes in our “ad hominem” filters….whether or not said posts are removed. What I am saying is that, IMHO, most of the more negative crap does come from the “more conservative” posters (issendorf excepted…but then, he really isn’t all that far to the right…IMHO).

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by simeng:I can’t think of who the third person was, but I definitely don’t remember any “tantrum behavior”.

I voted for him, but don’t remember if I mentioned it or not; might have been me.

Oh, hell no. NOT YOU.
AND, there is absolutely NO sarcasm in that….at all.

It does demonstrate that very different interpretations from the actual intent can be had when "speaking’ on a forum. We all know this…..we should keep it in mind when we are tempted to “read into” a post what we prefer to “see” rather than what we know was the actual intent.

I don’t really care who voted for whom….it was the arrogant adherance to an ideology that was at the core of much of the contention in that thread. It was merely being fueled by butthurt feelings of an external loss. It was the Congressional race that I was closely watching. Also, I saw little-2-NO “gloating” by the “winners”.

By the way…thanks for reviving a new one,,,,now that a cooling off seems to have happened. I’m yet hoping that this thread might contribute in some small way to helping keep things a weeeebit south of the boiling point….lol

Originally posted by simeng:

Unfortunately, although simple in principle, it is a problem constitutional to the definition of intellectualism and cannot be easily disposed of without resorting to alternate methodology of practice

What?

Exactly.
Ain’t that crap a real hoot?
Ya gotta luv a loquacious transubstantiate zinger singer.
I haven’t seen him do it for some time now.
I’m glad it’s baaaaaaaack.
LOL
 
Flag Post

Understanding this concept seems to be a huge “foggy area” for (MOSTLY?) the more “conservative” faction here (who knows what the hell Jan is….he “claims” to distractedly neutral…the better to be able to skewer both sides…lol). I’m guessing that such is why so many of their posts are removed….eh?

Actually I’ve never claimed neutrality. And my post is quite safe on this thread – feel free to ask questions if you’re unsure of the meaning. Also, as I mentioned, posts are removed because people flag them – not because they’re terribly uncivil.

See, what I find amusing about this thread is that YOU use ad hominems all the time (here’s a recent one that mytie and issendorf pointed out), then turn around and accuse the conservatives of not being committed enough to a civil discourse.

My “take” on jake-o on this forum is that little-2-NOTHING is “sincere” about him…..
at least to any degree of merit.

ah, well here’s another ad hominem in your very post, and also one that comes with no evidence, unsurprisingly. See, my take on the situation you present is that jhco is quite sincere…and you just don’t like his views. Neither do I…but I don’t let that affect my judgment of his character. You do. And therefore dismiss his rather admirable apology immediately following the election as bullshit. I’d be curious about all those people he made that bet with, if they’d be willing to do the same thing if Obama had lost. And, speaking of conservatives and good character, mytie apologized to me, publicly, for misreading my post in the secession thread. He certainly didn’t have to. Now we compare those cases to your own character record, like your inability to take criticism or admit that you were EVER wrong about anything…

…most ppl aren’t able to see themselves….

Got that right. Now apply it to yourself before you continue to pontificate.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Oh, hell no. NOT YOU.
AND, there is absolutely NO sarcasm in that….at all.

Told you I was moderate. It doesn’t really matter though; one of the candidates is in and it’s time to move forward. I don’t dislike either of them, I think they’re both well intentioned (as well intentioned as any politician can be); I just thought it was time for a change.

 
Flag Post

Oh my goodness, Jan. For a smart guy…YOU sure do get things confused….a lot.
Now the above actually is an ad hominem.

This isn’t: Jan, what ya’re saying about me is utter bullshit….just like what ya do a lot ON HERE.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Understanding this concept seems to be a huge “foggy area” for (MOSTLY?) the more “conservative” faction here (who knows what the hell Jan is….he “claims” to distractedly neutral…the better to be able to skewer both sides…lol). I’m guessing that such is why so many of their posts are removed….eh?

Actually I’ve never claimed neutrality.

And I care about this….HOW?

And my post is quite safe on this thread – feel free to ask questions if you’re unsure of the meaning.

Which post?
“Safe”…?
What meaning?
C’mon…make some sense here….lol

Also, as I mentioned, posts are removed because people flag them – not because they’re terribly uncivil.

Is this some kind of a test to see if I’m awake?
THAT has to be one of the dumbest things I’ve read on here.
YES, it’s pretty damned UNLIKELY that a post won’t get removed UNLESS it has been flagged…DUH. Do ya think the mods read EVERYTHING put up in SD?

OH, just an FYI, they are likely flagged BECAUSE they are “uncivil” and the mod agrees…DUH, again. lol

See, what I find amusing about this thread is that YOU use ad hominems all the time (here’s a recent one that mytie and issendorf pointed out),

NOPE…not an example at all.
Show me where I impugned the character of MyTie specifically.
I was speaking “generically” and it was obvious that I was.
I just think that YOU & I disagree (in some “odd” fashion) to the point that it is obviously “clouding” your observations on what I write.

… then turn around and accuse the conservatives of not being committed enough to a civil discourse.

Did I say: “committed”?
Did I say: “capable”?
I will say that AT TIMES they certainly do toss any INTEREST in observing the GUIDELINDS for SD discussion. Ya know, like YOU are so proficient at doing….lol

My “take” on jake-o on this forum is that little-2-NOTHING is “sincere” about him…..
at least to any degree of merit.

ah, well here’s another ad hominem in your very post, and also one that comes with no evidence, unsurprisingly.

Oh…blah,,blah,,,blah.
First: It isn’t an ad hominem. It addresses NOT his character, but his “performance” here on the forum.
Second: It fucking doesn’t NEED ANY EVIDENCE. It’s simply MY OPINION. How hard is it for YOU to understand this. Obviously quite difficult…..OR, ya’re just trolling to see if ya can bait me enough to be your “bitch”….lol BTW, as long as ya’ve been on this forum….I’m guessing that ya’ve seen that a goodly number of other posters have the same OPINION of jake-o….at least, this is MY OPONION of their offerings.

See, my take on the situation you present is that jhco is quite sincere…

Well….good for YOU.
And, thanks for your input.
AND, I hope ya don’t mind if I don’t care….lol
and mostly just cuz it’s YOU.

…and you just don’t like his views. Neither do I…

Wow…common ground. Pres. Carter would be overjoyed. lol

…but I don’t let that affect my judgment of his character.

How hard is it for YOU to understand that on this forum (as in RL),,it’s pretty damn hard to separate ones “character” from their ideology. And, if they present the later and it is “attacked”….then there very easily is going to be a very tacit “connection” to their character?

This must be either difficult for ya or ya just don’t give a shit and skip right to character smearing w/ the many vile things YOU resort to doing. But, I guess I’ll now have to point out each one from now on…..lol, NOT.
And therefore dismiss his rather admirable apology immediately following the election as bullshit.

SO?
Thanks for the criticism….
I’ll take it under consideration and treat it w/ all the value it merits.
Jan, while being quite brilliant—just like jake-o and his hyperbole, etc.—most of the merit of YOUR input (at least for me) is pissed down yer pant legs because ya present them in such an arrogance, pompous, ansinine, condescending manner…eh?

I toss jake-o’s “apology” in w/ the bin of all of this other offerings and I come up w/ a: SO? Not so much impressed. Saying sorry is easy to do….and can mean absolutely NOTHING.

I’d be curious about all those people he made that bet with, if they’d be willing to do the same thing if Obama had lost.

SO?
Why donchya ask THEM?
Do I look like a seer to ya?
LOL

And, speaking of conservatives and good character,
Let’s keep in mind here that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT their “character”. I’m ONLY addressing their “performance” as shown on THIS forum.

…mytie apologized to me, publicly, for misreading my post in the secession thread. He certainly didn’t have to.

Are we now “crowing” just a bit about how “right” ya are? lol
Didgya notice how he “feared” that doing so would only invite spleen from YOU?
Only after ya “gave permission” did he “bow” to your arrogance.
Hey….just my OPINION,,,
deal w/ it…..or, NOT.

Now we compare those cases to your own character record,

I have a RECORD?
WOW.
Ya mean like in Edgar J.’s files?

YOU do understand that YOUR OPINION about MY character is absolutely SUBJECTIVE
as well as an ad hominem?
How silly YOU “talk”….lol

… like your inability to take criticism or admit that you were EVER wrong about anything…

Oooohhhhh….nice touch.
YOU do a pretty good “jake-o hyperbole”.
AND, ya’re wrong about the “take criticism” thing….I just did it FOR YOU above….ha ha.

…most ppl aren’t able to see themselves….

Got that right. Now apply it to yourself.

Right backatchy, bro.
lol

OH, btw….thanks for pretty much proving my point in making this thread…
Ya did marvelously…..0¿~
I think this post (while “mildly” on topic) very well demonstrates just how ridiculous discourse can become when a bit-0-shit gets tossed in and greatly “stirred” by childish behavior.
AND, just in case it didn’t attain “escape velocity”….I’ll address your other “lemon-harangue pie” post later on.
Stay tuned.

 
Flag Post
NOPE…not an example at all.
Show me where I impugned the character of MyTie specifically.
I was speaking “generically” and it was obvious that I was.
I just think that YOU & I disagree (in some “odd” fashion) to the point that it is obviously “clouding” your observations on what I write.
My “take” on jake-o on this forum is that little-2-NOTHING is “sincere” about him…..
at least to any degree of merit.

Not about My Tie, but good lord, it’s the next paragraph down in your post….

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
NOPE…not an example at all.
Show me where I impugned the character of MyTie specifically.
I was speaking “generically” and it was obvious that I was.
I just think that YOU & I disagree (in some “odd” fashion) to the point that it is obviously “clouding” your observations on what I write.
My “take” on jake-o on this forum is that little-2-NOTHING is “sincere” about him…..
at least to any degree of merit.

Not about My Tie, but good lord, it’s the next paragraph down in your post….

issendorf, I think ya’re a weeeebit “confused” here.
I’m gonna post the link Janto gave that he said I was “committing” ad hominenizm..lol:

Ya know, MyTie….
“they” say the same fucking bullshit nonsense when the MINIMUM wage is raised.
A hard kick in the nutsack to all those who piss, whine, moan, wail, sob about SHARING this country’s great wealth (wealth, by the way, that also IS CREATED BY the working poor) w/ those who have no REAL, SENISBLE health care.

All this crap about Obamacare is just the new bigotry.
Ya can’t hate niggers,,,,
ya can’t hate faggots,,,
ya can’t hate Jews,,,
ya can’t hate Pollocks,,,

SO, let’s hate those fucking POOR PEOPLE who ought to be pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. YEAH. They are the cause of all the problems in America. Let’s blame them.

Sound familiar?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As I said, one would have to really stretch the bounds of sensibility to say that I was insulting TyTie himself.

NOW, to address the paragraph YOU are referring to: “My “take” on jake-o on this forum is that little-2-NOTHING is “sincere” about him…..
at least to any degree of merit.”

Maybe it truly is a situation of : ….where I come from….
ya know, how “southern” accents are different than mid-western ones,,
how local idioms don’t “translate” in other areas?

BUT, believe me, when I say “My take on XXXX ON THIS FORUM” means just that, LIMITED TO ON THIS FORUM

I’ve stated this before.
I don’t know ANYTHING about him OTHER THAN what I see ON THE FORUM.
How then can I comment other wise?
Here, I am addressing the sum amount of “who” he is relating to ONLY what I know of him on this forum.

I also have addressed the issue (just recently, in fact) that such “misunderstandings” of the written word can easily be misunderstood and that ALL OF US would be well advised to keep this in our mind as we read what the others write. Okay?

 
Flag Post
NOW, to address the paragraph YOU are referring to: “My “take” on jake-o on this forum is that little-2-NOTHING is “sincere” about him…..
at least to any degree of merit.”

Maybe it truly is a situation of : ….where I come from….
ya know, how “southern” accents are different than mid-western ones,,
how local idioms don’t “translate” in other areas?

You can’t take anything he says seriously. When he appologizes, you look at it jadedly. You are fundamentally attacking jhco’s character when he made no argument. You’re attacking his apology from his wager during the election.

You go on to say “This is because so much of his ideology is quite…..well, BIZZARE.” You’re basically calling him a nutjob, that he’s crazy, that his opinions are lesser than the wiseness of yours.

It’s quite incredible that you are this bleeding heart about a lack of civility on the forums when you are one of the worst offenders (as Jan pointed out earlier). I don’t necessarily have a problem with you using biting words to describe people. But, you’ve flagged posts of mine for me simply being sarcastic. You dismiss anything jhco says because he’s very conservative, that because he has that ideology, he simply can’t be all that intelligent. After all, would a smart person submit themselves to a ‘bizarre ideology?’ And yet, you do this just a paragraph before trying to argue that you’ve never done this to My Tie.

Stop pretending to be holier than thou. Stop pretending to be this noble civility deity that rises above the fray. You don’t. You’re just as bad as the others you’re calling out. Whether you wish to continue to turn a blind eye to what you’ve done or try to make the argument that what those nasty conservatives are doing is worse, then fine – continue to dilute yourself. I don’t know how much credibility others on the forums give you. I give you quite a bit of credibility. But, the one problem I’ve always had with you and always called you out on is your blatant, unwavering hypocrisy – someone who in the same posts will lash out when you are personally attacked, and then proceed to personally attack said poster.

BUT, believe me, when I say “My take on XXXX ON THIS FORUM” means just that, LIMITED TO ON THIS FORUM

I’ve stated this before.
I don’t know ANYTHING about him OTHER THAN what I see ON THE FORUM.
How then can I comment other wise?
Here, I am addressing the sum amount of “who” he is relating to ONLY what I know of him on this forum.

That’s the same as everyone. By that logic, there is no ad-hominem since we don’t really know anyone in real life. If you’re going to switch your stance to this, then this entire post is meaningless since you more or less retract your OP.

 
Flag Post

I don’t think it’s a good idea to start accusing each other of not being civil. I suggest everyone to stick to the basics: general descriptions of what could or could not be civil, without being very obvious about whom you’re referring to. I myself would want to point out several posters acting not much in a civil manner to me, but that would do more damage than good.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
NOW, to address the paragraph YOU are referring to: “My “take” on jake-o on this forum is that little-2-NOTHING is “sincere” about him…..
at least to any degree of merit.”

Maybe it truly is a situation of : ….where I come from….
ya know, how “southern” accents are different than mid-western ones,,
how local idioms don’t “translate” in other areas?

You can’t take anything he says seriously.

Bingo.
I’m glad we cleared that up.
goo job there.

When he appologizes, you look at it jadedly.

SO?
Is this some kind of sin…..for YOU?
Good grief….I see YOU looking at a lot on here in a “jaded” manner.

You are fundamentally attacking jhco’s character when he made no argument.You’re attacking his apology from his wager during the election.

Oh, for the luv of gawd.
His appolgy WAS ABOUT an “arguement” of his
An “arguement” that I find to be “silly” and out of touch w/ reality.
I’m attacking THE ARGUEMENT,,,
NOT the person from whence it springs.

You go on to say “This is because so much of his ideology is quite…..well, BIZZARE.” You’re basically calling him a nutjob, that he’s crazy, that his opinions are lesser than the wiseness of yours.

Well, issnedorf…
if such is the way YOU want to see…..OKAY.
I guess ya don’t understand that most all of us are discussion OUR OWN PERSONAL IDEOLOG on this forum. If a persentation of a point in their ideology is attacked….then, AS I SAID BEFORE, the PERSON is also tacitly attacked.

I have NEVER said there isn’t “bleed over”.
Holly shit.

It’s quite incredible that you are this bleeding heart about a lack of civility on the forums when you are one of the worst offenders (as Jan pointed out earlier).

LOL
Just because I make a thread about an issue DOES NOT MEAN that I’m pro or con on it.
At least NOT YET. I’ve waited to give MY opinion on the issue until after most others have weighed in…..in order to omit any influence said opinion would have on theirs.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with you using biting words to describe people.

Good, I’m glad ya cleared that up.
Now, I can fill in the moat & eat the gators.

You’ve flagged posts of mine for me simply being sarcastic.

I have? LOL
Where in the turd pot did YOU come up w/ THAT ONE?
First: I rarely flag ANYTHING…..except, of course, spam.
Second: YOU use sarcasm? Dayyyum. Now, I understand. LOL

You dismiss anything jhco says because he’s very conservative,

NO…I “dismiss” (whatever YOU mean by that) what he says (note: ONLY certain parts of it) because it actually IS utterly BIZZAR batshit far-right demogaugory….IN MY OPINIOIN
OKAY?

..that because he has that ideology, he simply can’t be all that intelligent.

NO
If YOU want to believe that is what I’m doing….THAT is YOUR “problem”.
Such isn’t my intent,,,
nor is it realistic….as I’ve pointed out already.
Stay w/ me here, issen.

After all, would a smart person submit themselves to a ‘bizarre ideology?’

OH, HELL YES THEY WOULD.
I’ve seen it in history…
I see it every day here in Kansas and what would appear to be very similar situations via TV news.

Stop pretending to be holier than thou.

OKAY
wait…what?

Stop pretending to be this noble civility deity that rises above the fray.
You don’t aren’t.

Oh shit.
NOW, ya’re talking JUST LIKE jake-o.
lol

How hard is it for YOU to see that YOU are now impugning my CHARACTER rather than how my posts MIGHT IMPLY this?…..or just that my posts reek of such characterizaion in general?
Such is what I do.
Know the difference.
DUH.

You’re just as bad as the others you’re calling out.

Did I EVER say I wasn’t?
OH…I really haven’t said shit about that….yet.
Now have I?
I’ve ONLY talked ABOUT IT IN GENERAL TERMS…..not my own specific…
OPPS…wait,, I do recall saying something. “I want to be the first (cuz I know several others are already lining up…lol) to say that—while I pretty much observe the ad hominem GUIDELINES—I really push the limits of what Zshadow intends as being CIVIL.”

Whether you wish to continue to turn a blind eye to what you’ve done or try to make the argument that what those nasty conservatives are doing is worse, then fine – continue to dilute yourself.

DILUTE? lol
I turn no eye of any kind to much of any thing…..
I first will observe and then perhaps opt to “ignore” for the most part.
Usually for the BIZZARE “conservatives”….who literally bore the shit outta me….so childishly redundant they are.
AND, I thank ya muchly for the permission to do so. LOL

I don’t know how much credibility others on the forums give you. I give you quite a bit of credibility.

Okay.
I guess?

But, the one problem I’ve always had with you and always called you out on is your blatant, unwavering hypocrisy –

Okay.
I guess?
After all, this is a forum for discussion OF DIFFERING IDEAS….
so, I guess some might see hypocrisy in others….
DUH.

someone who in the same posts will be lash out when you are personally attack, and then proceed to personally attack said poster.

HUN?
Pass that doobie over to me, bro.
YOU have had enough for 2nite.

BUT, believe me, when I say “My take on XXXX ON THIS FORUM” means just that, LIMITED TO ON THIS FORUM

I’ve stated this before.
I don’t know ANYTHING about him OTHER THAN what I see ON THE FORUM.
How then can I comment other wise?
Here, I am addressing the sum amount of “who” he is relating to ONLY what I know of him on this forum.

That’s the same as everyone. By that logic, there is no ad-hominem since we don’t really know anyone in real life. If you’re going to switch your stance to this, then this entire post is meaningless since you more or less retract your OP.


Oh, whatever…issen.
I expect much more than this from YOU.
Could it be that our own ideological differences are in some way “clouding” YOUR judgment on this?

I’ve already VERY OBVIOUSLY stated that there is a rather large “gray zone” on what constitutes an ad hominem. Give this bullshit of yours a rest. If THAT crap is the best ya can come up w/ for addressing my OP….OKAY.
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa….
LOL

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

LOL

Ad hominem by proxy…

Sweeeeeeet.

AND,,, el wrongo.
It NEVER HAS shut me up…
and IT never will.
Delude yourself as ya want NEED….
lol

 
Flag Post

That would be ideal but I think what ends up happening – as the first page shows – is posters trying to sidestep naming and blaming by saying ‘this person’ or ‘that person’ when it’s obvious who they’re discussing and all the more insulting for it.

Then this topic is a problem and unfortunately should be closed. And no, that’s not a personal attack against you per se, Karma, it’s merely against the issue that people will continue to refer to specific others, with everyone knowing who they mean. It isn’t ideal for a healthy forum section.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:All this crap about Obamacare is just the new bigotry.
Ya can’t hate niggers,,,,
ya can’t hate faggots,,,
ya can’t hate Jews,,,
ya can’t hate Pollocks,,,

SO, let’s hate those fucking POOR PEOPLE

Yeah, you posted this in the Obamacare thread. Calling people “bigots” because they think that Obamacare is a burden on the economy is ad hominem. It’s not even subtle.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Yea, I have definitely noticed that my threads always have the same voices in them, and usually lack specific others. For the most part its going to be lack of interest. Many issues that follow my subject of choice seem like science-fiction to the average layperson. They’re not, but getting over that hump has proven … exhausting, in the past.

For myself personally, I find most of your posts utterly fascinating. It’s just that you’re discussing, as Jan hinted at earlier, are at a bit of a different level. I’m content with just reading and absorbing, such as the back and forth with you and Omega on the YouTube thread.

Well the YouTube thread’s an unflattering example, as that was simply trying (and failing) to explain the basics of capitalism as a necessary internet business model versus ‘just give us everything for free’.

Still, I am glad that others are gettin something of value out of them. Aside from one poster who always gives me their thoughs via whisper rather than in the thread, I an only go by the results I see as to what others think. Whilst I am a mind-reader, I need my equipment present and hooked up on your end, in order to do that. Without that aid, I’m as blind as everyone else to what is being thought.


Getting back on topic, to where things seem to have progressed to over the last few days. It is not really the lack of civility that is the problem; rather it is when posters refuse to address the argument presnted, whilst simultaneously taking pot-shots at other posters. It is not so bad when they at least attempt to address the arguments. However, if you are not going to do that, why bother to post at all?

Sometimes when you do address the argument, the person comes back and insults you for that ‘obviously’ not being what they meant. Obvious to that person maybe, not to others. I’ve caused it a few times myself, and been forced to re-explain my argument, justifying why that viewpoint is not acceptable in these circumstances.

Would it really be so bad, if others did the same? If there’s a communication misfire, accept, at least the first dozen times with a given poster, that it may be something to do with you, and not with them? If it keeps happening beyond that, they are most likely trolling, and there is nothing you can do.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

That would be ideal but I think what ends up happening – as the first page shows – is posters trying to sidestep naming and blaming by saying ‘this person’ or ‘that person’ when it’s obvious who they’re discussing and all the more insulting for it.

Then this topic is a problem and unfortunately should be closed. And no, that’s not a personal attack against you per se, Karma, it’s merely against the issue that people will continue to refer to specific others, with everyone knowing who they mean. It isn’t ideal for a healthy forum section.

Dark, allow me to counter w/ the simple: If the shoe fits…ya might give good consideration to wearing it.

I really don’t recall a whole lot of the inuendo-style of referrencing being mentioned here….at all. Mabye a smattering here or there. What I do see is a whooooole lot of generic harsh criticism of ideologies, opinions, links, etc. put forth by posters that very much are obviously in agreement w/ them.

As I’ve pointed out, such harsh criticisms are going to be difficult to make distinctions between the generic concept and the person holding it. If there is a way to do so, please tell us. The below is the best Zshadow offered in his Guidelines for SD:
““This is a safe place for people, but not for ideas. Expect what you say to be challenged, but do not go after the individual people.”
– the immortal words of some dudes and dudettes that Phoenix knows.”

Where a very likely problem comes from in this “attack-the-idea” and how it segues into the “if-the-shoe-fits” application is: When we “make the shoe” arguement, we have NO IDEA of what the feet of the person putting forth the idea look like. We have NO IDEA of how they are going to take such criticism of their post. We have NO IDEA of how they will respond…such is the nature of most discussions.

We, in my opinion, the real problems arise is two fold.
ONE: As has been pointed out many times by many ppl: A really good & accurate offer of points in a post are (can be?) severely affected by the obvious limitations due to several factors. Two big ones are the lack of the many inflections available in face to face (or even toneal via the phone, etc.) conversation. Another is, as I’ve pointed out, the “where-I-come-from” regional differences (America is big….the world even moreso). This is why I put so many word//phrases in quotes….I try to give a heads up that how they are “take” isn’t necessarily how they are “meant”.

The other reason: It’s quite simple really, the way a post is meant is of little consequence. The “trollish” person is merely looking for a morsel to sink their teeth into so they can be as insulting as the forum GUIDELINES allow. I’d say Janto (< A REAL, DIRECT NAME…btw) does this a lot of the time.

In regards to the “health” of the forum….
well, THAT is highly debatable.
BUT, I will say this,,,,considering a lot of the discussion are about what many warn against discusing in RL, religion & politics: I think it operates quite well.
AND, those who so enjoy impugining the moderation can go to hell.
It’s a job being done BY ppl FOR ppl & TO ppl.
If anyone has a better idea on how to do this…then, SPEAK UP.

 
Flag Post
SO?
Is this some kind of sin…..for YOU?
Good grief….I see YOU looking at a lot on here in a “jaded” manner.
Oh, for the luv of gawd.
His appolgy WAS ABOUT an “arguement” of his
An “arguement” that I find to be “silly” and out of touch w/ reality.
I’m attacking THE ARGUEMENT,,,
NOT the person from whence it springs.

The difference is 1) I readily acknowledge when I cross the line and 2) I don’t OP a thread mourning people who do it while turning a blind eye to myself. If you continue to cover years and shout to avoid hearing it, then we’ll continue to have the uncivil conversations since one of the biggest provocateurs will continue to be going on as business as usual.

I have? LOL
Where in the turd pot did YOU come up w/ THAT ONE?
First: I rarely flag ANYTHING…..except, of course, spam.
Second: YOU use sarcasm? Dayyyum. Now, I understand. LOL

When I said to Jaume: Your brilliance is staggering. You went on some rant about how it was such a nasty thing to say. Was really quite hilarious coming from you.


As for the rest of your post, its just you getting hyper-defensive for reasons that are a bit mystifying. I’m not really seeing the point is respond to much else of it.

 
Flag Post
Whilst I am a mind-reader, I need my equipment present and hooked up on your end, in order to do that. Without that aid, I’m as blind as everyone else to what is being thought.

anyone else. anyone, and i would have called bullshit.