Obnoxious and arrogant is in the eye of the beholder...
I tell people about the flaws in their arguments and theories and suddenly I AM THE ONE who’s being arrogant. I find its verry common for people to start to criticise me personally after i have identified a number of critical thinking fallacies in their arguments.
This conforms to the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.
Most often they criticise my tone, or by taking everything ive said as an insult instead of as identifying a logical puzzle for them to solve.
If they used critical thinking and scientific method and debated often, like me, then they would work out many of lifes puzzles, which is why i am such a strong proponent of it as a teaching method.
I tell people about the flaws in their arguments and theories and suddenly I AM THE ONE who’s being arrogant.
Your comments were full of implicit and explicit signals of condescension towards the people you were talking to.
I find its verry common for people to start to criticise me personally after i have identified a number of critical thinking fallacies in their arguments. This conforms to the definition of an ad hominem fallacy. “the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself.”
It would only be an “ad hominem” fallacy if I was pretending to attack your argument: if I used an attack on your person in order to undermine your position. But I’m not doing that : I’m attacking your person, in order to have you improve your attitude, regardless of what position you hold.
I really don’t give a shit about your position on 9/11 or vaccination. As I’m not an American I really don’t have an emotional investment on your government being innocent or guilty on these issues. I find your government already significantly much more guilty on worse issues than these two.
Most often they criticise my tone,
They properly criticize your tone, because your tone is absolutely horrible. Grow up or go away. This is a place for civilized discussion.
“Your comments were full of implicit and explicit signals of condescension towards the people you were talking to.”
no source.
“It would only be an “ad hominem” fallacy if I was pretending to attack your argument: if I used an attack on your person in order to undermine your position. But I’m not doing that : I’m attacking your person, in order to have you improve your attitude, regardless of what position you hold.”
So, the reason are trying to improve my attitude, is because of my attitude (which is your conclusion).
So if you believe the attitude is there. Then you are fine with this conclusion. But if you don’t… Either way you keep believing exactly what you did before.
My attitude is proportionate to my position; my argument is not disproven. So, if i disprove others argument. It is their position which should change.
You need to get used to abandoning positions which no longer work. Instead of trying to re-enforce a failed position.
“As I’m not an American I really don’t have an emotional investment on your government”
I’m not American. I was discussing conspiracies. Why is it you think we have to have an emotional investment in things? It is merely a matter of evidence.
CriticalSteel—I’ve not made any argument to you, circular or otherwise. I refuse to argue with you because you’re obnoxious and rude.
No, I’m not making arguments about the validity of my estimation of you either, I’m just communicating it to you.
You still think people are debating you. We’re not. We’re telling you to improve your behavior or go AWAY. This is not an argument, this is an instruction: Improve your manners or be downvoted to oblivion, again, and again, and again.
Aris, I’ve noticed you keep engaging low-quality contributions (from different users). It’s better to avoid commenting on posts that are expected to be downvoted to hidden-by-default (or already have been), otherwise you encourage further low-quality contributions.
Yeah, you’re right. It’s a bad habit I need to break myself out of—I keep deluding myself into thinking that I have a chance to fix their broken behaviours and make them actually useful members or atleast plant useful ideas into them.
All i did was challenge the “here be dragons” video, on its flaws, as per critical thinking. Which is the premier, logical method. But none of you seem to know it.
Now, having challenged your beliefs i am subjected to a cascade of arguments filled with logical fallacies in their critical thinking.
Simply put. You condemn what you don’t understand.
Also, most of you here are completely illogical and cannot even make a comment without handicapping yourself.
Just what makes you think you can down vote a critical thinker, when you yourself cannot even do it?
There are massive, gaping flaws in the core principles you all take for granted. Most of them are based on opinion and never tested, obviously, because their full of logical fallacies which people have known about since the 1700s.
Everything you SAY is an argument, a proposition, everything is a theory until proven. Which the credibility must be analysed by critical thinking criteria.
and,
If your making an argument that doesnt include evidence then your not being logical.
“this is an instruction”
Who are you, who is to suggest instructions to me, without any evidence or credibility atall by the critical thinking criteria.
“Improve your manners or be downvoted to oblivion, again, and again, and again.”
Obnoxious and arrogant is in the eye of the beholder...
This is, for all practical purposes, false. “Obnoxious” and “arrogant” are not properties like “blue” or “spherical” or “rumbling” that correspond to objective phenomena independent of social context.
If you say the ball is spherical and everyone else around you says the ball is cubic, you are almost certainly correct despite being a minority of one.
If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant, even if you beg to difer.
Because YOU say so? Wheres your evidence? Coz all i see is a theory...
“Obnoxious” and “arrogant” are not properties like “blue” or “spherical” or “rumbling” that correspond to objective phenomena independent of social context.
Yes they are.
They have set definitions in dictionaries. The evidence would be a specific quote, and the explanation of how the quote achieves the criteria of the dictionary.
Your “social context” does not prove anything besides you perception. Which is hardly evidence on its own.
“If you say the ball is spherical and everyone else around you says the ball is cubic, you are almost certainly correct despite being a minority of one.”
No you arnt… jeez, you people dont understand a damned thing about logic or scientific method.
Things arnt real just because you perceive them to be real. Their real because they can be repeatable PROVEN to be real.
What you just described is being biased to your own view. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL THIS TIME...
“If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant, even if you beg to difer.”
This is the complete opposite of what you just explained. Now, i’m not “certainly correct despite being a minority of one.” Because “If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant”.
If everyone around me said we should all jump off a bridge that wouldnt make them any more correct than if i was on my own saying we should all jump off a bridge.
The missing link is; evidence.
For example, if i was the only one on fire, and the bridge had water below, and was the only way i could be extinguished. Then, considering the evidence, i would be justified. But if i tried to convince others who were not on fire. Then i wouldn’t be justified.
D:
Obnoxious and arrogant is in the eye of the beholder...
I tell people about the flaws in their arguments and theories and suddenly I AM THE ONE who’s being arrogant. I find its verry common for people to start to criticise me personally after i have identified a number of critical thinking fallacies in their arguments.
This conforms to the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.
“the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself.” ~ http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/adhominem/
Most often they criticise my tone, or by taking everything ive said as an insult instead of as identifying a logical puzzle for them to solve.
If they used critical thinking and scientific method and debated often, like me, then they would work out many of lifes puzzles, which is why i am such a strong proponent of it as a teaching method.
Your comments were full of implicit and explicit signals of condescension towards the people you were talking to.
It would only be an “ad hominem” fallacy if I was pretending to attack your argument: if I used an attack on your person in order to undermine your position. But I’m not doing that : I’m attacking your person, in order to have you improve your attitude, regardless of what position you hold.
I really don’t give a shit about your position on 9/11 or vaccination. As I’m not an American I really don’t have an emotional investment on your government being innocent or guilty on these issues. I find your government already significantly much more guilty on worse issues than these two.
They properly criticize your tone, because your tone is absolutely horrible. Grow up or go away. This is a place for civilized discussion.
no source.
“Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. “Ad hominems can simply take the form of abuse: e.g. “don’t listen to him, he’s a jerk”. http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/adhominem/
Your above argument, is also a circular argument. “Circular arguments are arguments that assume what they’re trying to prove. If the conclusion of an argument is also one of its reasons, then the argument is circular.” http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/circularity/
So, the reason are trying to improve my attitude, is because of my attitude (which is your conclusion). So if you believe the attitude is there. Then you are fine with this conclusion. But if you don’t… Either way you keep believing exactly what you did before.
My attitude is proportionate to my position; my argument is not disproven. So, if i disprove others argument. It is their position which should change.
You need to get used to abandoning positions which no longer work. Instead of trying to re-enforce a failed position.
“As I’m not an American I really don’t have an emotional investment on your government”
I’m not American. I was discussing conspiracies. Why is it you think we have to have an emotional investment in things? It is merely a matter of evidence.
CriticalSteel—I’ve not made any argument to you, circular or otherwise. I refuse to argue with you because you’re obnoxious and rude.
No, I’m not making arguments about the validity of my estimation of you either, I’m just communicating it to you.
You still think people are debating you. We’re not. We’re telling you to improve your behavior or go AWAY. This is not an argument, this is an instruction: Improve your manners or be downvoted to oblivion, again, and again, and again.
Aris, I’ve noticed you keep engaging low-quality contributions (from different users). It’s better to avoid commenting on posts that are expected to be downvoted to hidden-by-default (or already have been), otherwise you encourage further low-quality contributions.
Yeah, you’re right. It’s a bad habit I need to break myself out of—I keep deluding myself into thinking that I have a chance to fix their broken behaviours and make them actually useful members or atleast plant useful ideas into them.
He hasn’t proven anything yet...
All i did was challenge the “here be dragons” video, on its flaws, as per critical thinking. Which is the premier, logical method. But none of you seem to know it.
Now, having challenged your beliefs i am subjected to a cascade of arguments filled with logical fallacies in their critical thinking.
Simply put. You condemn what you don’t understand.
Also, most of you here are completely illogical and cannot even make a comment without handicapping yourself.
Just what makes you think you can down vote a critical thinker, when you yourself cannot even do it?
There are massive, gaping flaws in the core principles you all take for granted. Most of them are based on opinion and never tested, obviously, because their full of logical fallacies which people have known about since the 1700s.
Everything you SAY is an argument, a proposition, everything is a theory until proven. Which the credibility must be analysed by critical thinking criteria.
and,
If your making an argument that doesnt include evidence then your not being logical.
Who are you, who is to suggest instructions to me, without any evidence or credibility atall by the critical thinking criteria.
Restricting the options fallacy http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/restrictingtheoptions/
I’ll choose door number 3 please: I’ll continue using critical thinking, proving you wrong. Untill you all come around… or not.
This is, for all practical purposes, false. “Obnoxious” and “arrogant” are not properties like “blue” or “spherical” or “rumbling” that correspond to objective phenomena independent of social context.
If you say the ball is spherical and everyone else around you says the ball is cubic, you are almost certainly correct despite being a minority of one.
If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant, even if you beg to difer.
Because YOU say so? Wheres your evidence? Coz all i see is a theory...
Yes they are. They have set definitions in dictionaries. The evidence would be a specific quote, and the explanation of how the quote achieves the criteria of the dictionary.
Your “social context” does not prove anything besides you perception. Which is hardly evidence on its own.
No you arnt… jeez, you people dont understand a damned thing about logic or scientific method.
Things arnt real just because you perceive them to be real. Their real because they can be repeatable PROVEN to be real.
What you just described is being biased to your own view. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL THIS TIME...
This is the complete opposite of what you just explained. Now, i’m not “certainly correct despite being a minority of one.” Because “If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant”.
If everyone around me said we should all jump off a bridge that wouldnt make them any more correct than if i was on my own saying we should all jump off a bridge.
The missing link is; evidence.
For example, if i was the only one on fire, and the bridge had water below, and was the only way i could be extinguished. Then, considering the evidence, i would be justified. But if i tried to convince others who were not on fire. Then i wouldn’t be justified.
BUT YOU!!! You would jump along with me!
Huehuehue.… aint i a stinka?