Three things came to mind when I read this, not attacks, just my associations:
There is nothing wrong with being confrontational, as long as you don't forget you can also be confrontational and wrong at the same time; being confrontational doesn't necessarily mean you're right, or making a good argument.
Without judgment and confrontation nothing changes, true that. How harsh you are in your judgment and how fierce you are in your confrontation depends on personality also, not just on honesty. Being very confrontational isn't necessarily morally superior, or even the best way to achieve a goal.
Also, watch your blood pressure. Nobody wants you to pop a vein when you are being confrontational. Well, some might, but sod them.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
When I was younger I was way more wrong. I made lots of mistakes and learned from them. As I grew older the errors stopped occuring.
I am not claiming moral superiority. I claim sincerety
I doubt that these days you're never wrong. Very few people are, and I've seen at least parts of your arguments being ripped to shreds by sound reasoning, after which you are prone to resort to ad hominems and generally go Cartman. Doesn't the confrontational style make it more difficult to admit that you're wrong? It sometimes seems to clash with intellectual honesty.
Many of your postings are very well put together and make a good point. Some make an interesting point, but the arguments and reasoning in them are flawed. Being confrontational doesn't excuse that. I think you have a few steps more to go before you're error-free.
I am never claiming "truth" about others. If you have noticed in my posts I rather point out how things around us are subjective and how there is not really black and white but rather gray zones.
I haven't seen any arguments of mine being shred or anything. Maybe by your standards. But please, do state them and we shall discuss them again.
You are being eay too generic. I don't do generic. Point 1 and I shall demonstrate to you how most likely you are wrong.
How do you know you are "right" mate. Come on. You need to step it up here.
"As I grew older the errors stopped occuring" is what I was referring to, but I may have taken that too generally. I thought it referred to your postings, meaning you are never wrong. When you go ad hominem, I assume you have stopped arguing properly because you are out of arguments but just refuse to admit there may be some flaws in your reasoning. At that point, I lose interest because your arguing becomes even more flawed. If you want specifics: I am referring to this post. Even though you put forward an interesting point in that posting, I am quite convinced that (to my surprise, most of your posts are much better) your factual knowledge and reasoning suck in that post, and that I have sufficiently shown that. Tough love going both ways, is that OK too? Or are you infallible?
But "As I grew older the errors stopped occuring" could also refer to the confrontational method of judging, or weighing, people. If the latter, I have a question: I can well believe that being confrontational reduces the false positives to zero, but to be error-free you would also have to have zero false negatives, and that requires monitoring people you found too light, to see if you weren't wrong about them. Do you?
You keep saying ad hominem buddy but I don't think you understand what it means.
Now that you have learned what an ad-hominem is copy-paste the phrase which you think it has occured.
In that post i provided plenty of evidence. You are stuck because of your own ethical knowledge and perspective about on side of the war instead of the other. Why? Simple. You are a westerner and you had your mind crafted from western based propaganda.
Step it up ocrdu. Getting likes for some of your posts does not mean you are correct. Stupidity marches in numbers. never forget this.
Hm. Nesting problem. Re: @kyriacos You keep saying ...
You didn't answer the second part of my comment above, not the first time you ignore questions you can't handle.
I have known what an ad hominem is for 35 years, thank you. Saying "you're a dumbass" or "go to bed", especially, but not solely, without referring to a specific argument is an ad hominem, because it is "attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself". (Look it up if you have to.)
Now that you have learned what an ad hominem is: ad hominems come in many guises, because of what they imply. Even if you (incorrectly) classify them as personal attacks rather than ad hominems, they have no place in an adult discussion. Here are the quotes you requested:
"go to bed."
"intellectual dishonesty at its best yet from another "murica" man"
"sigh. pathetic human beings..."
"i have no respect for people who are this ignorant"
"Seriously now. Open a book" (Hilarious, for the people that know me.)
More recently: "you had your mind crafted from western based propaganda." (Also hilarious)
Not exactly ad rem remarks, wouldn't you agree? (Look it up if you have to.)
Nowhere do I say getting likes means I'm correct. Some stupidity, however, also marches alone and doesn't accept criticism from outside the comfortable bubble of arrogance, not even to improve their own argument. That is not only intellectually dishonest, it is also sad, because at some point, only the sycophants will respond to your posts, the rest will just shrug and remember Schiller's words: "Gegen Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens". Ad hominem intended.
You can either use my input to improve your reasoning skills or go Cartman again and sulk until the "I am always right" feeling kicks back in. Either way, I will keep reading your postings. Enough said.
never said those words by themselves. I rather added them at the very end. You still don't get it boy.
anws. in time you will