Once you start citing your own credentials and credibility as evidence, you are no longer allowed to complain about ad hominems. That you don’t appear to know this further undermines both.
If I do that then my credibility becomes relevant and hence so does evidence that there are problems with it (what you call ad hominem).
For example, you’ve claimed severaltimes that people should believe you because you are an academic historian. However, you’ve also demonstrated an unfamiliarity with how academic politics works and with basic aspects of logical argument. This can lead to sevral possible conclusions:
1) You’re lying about being an academic historian.
2) You really are an academic historian, but are bad at observation and reasoning, and thus likely to be incompetent at your job.
3) You really are an academic historian who is perfectly willing to lie and commit logical fallacies when it helps advance your argument.
Either way, we no longer have any reason to believe that you claim on your authority.
BTW, it’s interesting to observe that the comment I linked to had −6 karma last times I saw it a day ago, and now has +4. Kinda curious how it went up so far, especially since it was hidden below the threshold for the vast majority of users. At the same time, my karma over the last day went down from 1009 to 940. Sock puppet much, VoiceOfRa?
I believe I am competent at my job. You claim I am incompetent. I’d like to make a bet with you about whether an external outsider would judge me as competent at my job. How about $1000? Take the bet, or take back your claims.
I notice you did not, have not thought this whole thread, presented arguments in your favor, or even addressed my arguments. I’d be willing to take the bet, I propose brasil84 as the judge. If you want to propose a different judge, I’s want to verify that he is himself competent to judge and isn’t biased towards you.
So you’re saying you’re incompetent at your job, got it.
Well it depends on how one define’s his “job.” As a tenure-track professor, one could argue that his primary job is to make a good impression on his tenure committee. From that perspective, publishing an op-ed which implies that rationalism just happens to support left-wing foreign policy is probably a pretty good idea. So one could say that he’s doing his job rather well.
I see you are resorting to ad hominem attacks. I declare victory.
Once you start citing your own credentials and credibility as evidence, you are no longer allowed to complain about ad hominems. That you don’t appear to know this further undermines both.
Huh? You mean you wouldn’t cite expertise at being VoiceOfRa for representing what VoiceOfRa is like? This is counter to the very nature of evidence.
If I do that then my credibility becomes relevant and hence so does evidence that there are problems with it (what you call ad hominem).
For example, you’ve claimed several times that people should believe you because you are an academic historian. However, you’ve also demonstrated an unfamiliarity with how academic politics works and with basic aspects of logical argument. This can lead to sevral possible conclusions:
1) You’re lying about being an academic historian.
2) You really are an academic historian, but are bad at observation and reasoning, and thus likely to be incompetent at your job.
3) You really are an academic historian who is perfectly willing to lie and commit logical fallacies when it helps advance your argument.
Either way, we no longer have any reason to believe that you claim on your authority.
If you wish to discover whether I’m an academic historian, please Google me.
I am not interested in engaging further with you due to your ad hominem attacks on me.
BTW, it’s interesting to observe that the comment I linked to had −6 karma last times I saw it a day ago, and now has +4. Kinda curious how it went up so far, especially since it was hidden below the threshold for the vast majority of users. At the same time, my karma over the last day went down from 1009 to 940. Sock puppet much, VoiceOfRa?
So you’re saying you’re incompetent at your job, got it.
I believe I am competent at my job. You claim I am incompetent. I’d like to make a bet with you about whether an external outsider would judge me as competent at my job. How about $1000? Take the bet, or take back your claims.
I notice you did not, have not thought this whole thread, presented arguments in your favor, or even addressed my arguments. I’d be willing to take the bet, I propose brasil84 as the judge. If you want to propose a different judge, I’s want to verify that he is himself competent to judge and isn’t biased towards you.
So are you taking the bet? Are you comfortable with Viliam as a judge? I’d also be happy with John_Maxwell, gjm, or another prominent Less Wronger.
I’d suggest Viliam, as a well-known Less Wronger and neutral observer.
Well it depends on how one define’s his “job.” As a tenure-track professor, one could argue that his primary job is to make a good impression on his tenure committee. From that perspective, publishing an op-ed which implies that rationalism just happens to support left-wing foreign policy is probably a pretty good idea. So one could say that he’s doing his job rather well.