• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Capacity for Embarassment.

tytlyf

Not Religious
Thought I should mention this here...there are those who will wonder "why the hell did this obvious liberal Canadian even bother watching that horrible speech?"
I watched it. Each of the 3 days. Knowledge is power. People on the right wouldn't bother with any Democrat convention. They'll wait for the re-cap from their intellectual leaders on what/how to think about it. (always a negative narrative by design)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In the past you've gotten cranky when I call you out for making false equivalences.
So the word "cranky" means correcting false claim
of an informal logical fallacy? I recommend sticking
to dictionary definitions....not personal ones.
But your crankiness doesn't somehow mean you won't be called out again ;)

Your false equivalences are damaging.
Are you getting cranky at me?
Liberals...so many must learn to disagree without rancor.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
So the word "cranky" means correcting false claim
of an informal logical fallacy? I recommend sticking
to dictionary definitions....not personal ones.

denial, not pretty to witness.

Are you getting cranky at me?

Nah, I'm not getting cranky. But I wish you'd stop gumming up good discussions with your weak, distracting, false equivalencies :(
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I didn't watch the Trump speech live as I don't have cable and none of the main channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) here covered it. I guess it's on YouTube?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
But I wish you'd stop gumming up good discussions with your weak, distracting, false equivalencies :(
I wish you'd quit the false false equivalency fallacies.
But we don't get our wishes granted.
So toughen up, learn to accept disagreements, & stick to issues.
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I wish you'd quit the false false equivalency fallacies.
But we don't get our wishes granted.
So toughen up, learn to accept disagreements, & stick to issues.

Happy to do that, I'd ask you to stick to honest arguments.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Which of my posts contained false equivalences?
I don't keep track.
I'm concerned with bogus claims of false equivalency.
If you disagree with something, feel free to make your case.
But merely lobbing the label of an informal logical fallacy,
particularly when wielded incorrectly, is not discussion.
I have criticized only the quality of your arguments, that's not personal.
When you make your argument about another poster's
questionable honesty (however artful your language)
it's personal.
I don't question yours.
You should reciprocate.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I'm concerned with bogus claims of false equivalency.
If you disagree with something, feel free to make your case.
But merely lobbing the label of an informal logical fallacy,
particularly when wielded incorrectly, is not discussion.

It's not on the rest of us to clean up your sloppy posts.

When you make your argument about another poster's questionable honesty (however artful your language)
it's personal.
I don't question yours.
You should reciprocate.

The thing is, you're clearly a smart guy. So when you make a misleading post, it's hard to imagine that that post was done in good faith.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's not on the rest of us to clean up your sloppy posts.
You really don't see how such snark isn't personal?
I'd prefer that you stick to issues.
The thing is, you're clearly a smart guy. So when you make a misleading post, it's hard to imagine that that post was done in good faith.
Perhaps you assume that you have The Gospel Truth,
& that no intelligent person could honestly disagree.
This would be an error.

A reminder about how to handle disagreement....
RF MISSION STATEMENT
As a community of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds,
our aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful
and welcoming where people of diverse beliefs can discuss,
compare and debate religion while engaging in fellowship with
one another.
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
You really don't see how such snark isn't personal?
I'd prefer that you stick to issues.

When YOU create a post that uses a fallacy, do you think it's up to the rest of us to correct it for you? When YOU create a post that uses a fallacy, YOU'RE the one who is not really sticking to the issue. These fallacy posts of your tend to obfuscate and distract from the OP. I think YOU should do better at sticking to the issues.

Perhaps you assume that you have The Gospel Truth,
& that no intelligent person could honestly disagree.
You'd be wrong.

And... there's a strawman :)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
When YOU create a post that uses a fallacy, do you think it's up to the rest of us to correct it for you? When YOU create a post that uses a fallacy, YOU'RE the one whose not really sticking to the issue. These fallacy posts of your tend to obfuscate and distract from the OP. I think YOU should do better at sticking to the issues.
tenor.gif
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Yes @Revoltingest , ironic when viewed from the narrowest of perspectives.

You have some clout here dude. I'm asking you to step up, notice a habit you sometimes fall into, and make a slight course correction. It would appear from this exchange, that you think you've made 180,000 fallacy free posts?

What you might see - with a bit of introspection - is that your fallacy posts are subtly undermining the very mission statement you just refreshed us with.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm asking you to step up, notice a habit you sometimes fall into, and make a slight course correction.
Thou might first remove the plank from thine own eye.
Allow that others may disagree & be honest about it.
If unable, I suggest putting me on <ignore>.
There'd be less derailment.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Thou might first remove the plank from thine own eye.
Allow that others may disagree & be honest about it.
If unable, I suggest putting me on <ignore>.
There'd be less derailment.

When someone suggests that I made a fallacy argument, I take a look at my post to see if they are correct, and sometimes they are. I do not deny that I slip up sometimes, so I'm not sure what your "plank" comment is referring to?

OTOH, you seem completely unwilling to entertain the idea that you might have ever erred.

As for the "ignore" suggestion, I'm trying to do a public service here, for everyone that reads your posts. :)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
OTOH, you seem completely unwilling to entertain the idea that you might have ever erred.
Make a cromulent argument, & we'll see.
But so far, I've seen naught.
It began with post #38, which was devoid of support for the claim made.
Try to be interesting.
 
Last edited:
Top