Re: Fridge Logic and You

[Nuntius Mortis]

Banning someone is never the solution, j0lt.

[j0lt]

May not be THE solution, but it is A solution.

[Nuntius Mortis]

Again, I disagree. He could always create a new profile and continue posting. Bannings never solved everything. All they've ever done is worsening the attitude of banned used.

[Bozwevial]

Me: Do you have any examples of the MM using creature to mean Monster not creature?
JaronK: "Feel free to actually read the book and find that out for yourself."
Me: "No JaronK, you don't get to insist I read the MM again to try to find an example proving you right. You have to provide that evidence if you want me to take you seriously."
Jolt (quoting the above sentence of mine): "Wrong." (Followed by unrelated stuff, I'm going to assume because he directly quoted that statement and told me it was wrong, that he wsa negating that statement and as such would agree with the statement "JaronK does get to insist that I read the MM again to try to prove him right.")
Me (In parody): (Statement disagreeing with what he said.) "Feel free to actually read all my posts and find that out for yourself."

What the above tells me is that you do not read the posts of others fully.

Now, I would argue that a flaming douche bag must be someone who flames IE makes "a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion," which I would argue my response do. But that's an aside point, since the douche bag attache makes it entirely subjective and just demonstrates that jolt is taking this opportunity to flame me, and not interested in an actual discussion of any kind.

Hmm. Would the saying "Fight fire with fire" be appropriate here? No?

Evidently, the point of j0lt's post has been lost on you, either because you did not read it fully or because you are refusing to accept it.

Just out of curiosity Bozwevial, would you characterize the statement: "Hitler, just like Goebbels, was a jerk. Nazis are jerks." as a Godwin? Keeping in mind the definition of Godwin would probably be, "the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form."

I've heard Godwin used in both situations referencing and comparing Nazis. The original Godwin's Law mentions only comparisons, but references have now become standard usage.

And if it is not such a Godwin, if a poster should perhaps before declaring something to be such, know whether or not the accused Godwin is an actual comparison to Hitler? And additionally, are false accusations of comparison to Hitler appropriate?

If you are willing to accept a Godwin as a reference to Hitler, then this point is irrelevant, since no false accusations were made. Otherwise, we appear to be using different definitions of a Godwin.

As regardin my uncivility, or JaronK's "civility" yes, I can gather from your post that you are exactly the type of person who takes great delight in all insults be just deniable enough to never be blamed for, and are therefore a proponent of BGs recent unfortunate shift into a gitpesque troll playground where civil insults and purposeful deliberate stupidity to provoke ire are the accepted norm in disagreement and those who call out others for anything at all, from lapses of argument to stealth trolling are the problem.

As such, someone who actually is blunt about disagreement I could only imagine would be annoying.

Mhm. I do not believe I made any veiled insults in my post, but instead asked you to be civil in your discussion. This is something I feel I am quite justified in asking, since there is no reason for you to be so vitriolic towards JaronK.

Also, reading a single post in which someone asks you to stop being disrespectful seems like a poor way to gauge their character. I feel offended that it didn't take at least three before you discovered something sinister and juicy about me, like my writing style being a sign that I cut myself.

[Kaelik]

What the above tells me is that you do not read the posts of others fully.

Mostly just give him the benefit of the doubt in that when he choose one sentence out of my entire post to say wrong to he had a reason.

Hmm. Would the saying "Fight fire with fire" be appropriate here? No?

Evidently, the point of j0lt's post has been lost on you, either because you did not read it fully or because you are refusing to accept it.

I was not actually commenting on it as wrong, I am more upset about the unclear usage of wrong then the flaming, I believe the first post of jolts I ever saw was him flaming me.

I did however assume that like me he was using harshness to complement and emphasize a point, but apparently the point was "I hate you." and not something relevant to the conversation at hand.

I've heard Godwin used in both situations referencing and comparing Nazis. The original Godwin's Law mentions only comparisons, but references have now become standard usage.

Fair enough. Though I have never heard that definition I was just using the question to judge your character, turned out about how I expected. Unlike for example JaronK and jolt.

Mhm. I do not believe I made any veiled insults in my post, but instead asked you to be civil in your discussion. This is something I feel I am quite justified in asking, since there is no reason for you to be so vitriolic towards JaronK.

I was referring to your toleration of veiled insults not your participating in them. For example JaronK taking my well arranged analogy, and rather than countering (which he apparently has proven inept to do, since he has repeatedly chosen to present no evidence for his creature=monster argument) he instead decided to incredulously ask why I was resorting to a "Godwin" a word heavily connotative with a specific type of ad hominem. And with the relation further played up by his incredulous phrasing.

This was apparently perfectly acceptable to you as a rhetorical practice to avoid an argument, but outright brazen insults are bad enough that you felt the need to decry me.

Which is not to say you don't partake of your own civil snideness, as you did in this post, just that you had not at that time.

Also, reading a single post in which someone asks you to stop being disrespectful seems like a poor way to gauge their character. I feel offended that it didn't take at least three before you discovered something sinister and juicy about me, like my writing style being a sign that I cut myself.

I mostly got a Bulimic vibe, but I have heard of Bulimics who cut themselves, so who knows.

But we see hear that you made an assertion, subtly and deniably, that my judgment of you was premature, incorrect, and a meaning I cannot quite place half between childish and arrogant.

That's perfectly fine. But presumably you would have taken offense to someone saying, "After one post you don't have any fucking idea who I am, and the fact that you think you do shows you to be a childish arrogant dick." Despite it conveying the same thing.

[Bozwevial]

I was referring to your toleration of veiled insults not your participating in them. For example JaronK taking my well arranged analogy, and rather than countering (which he apparently has proven inept to do, since he has repeatedly chosen to present no evidence for his creature=monster argument) he instead decided to incredulously ask why I was resorting to a "Godwin" a word heavily connotative with a specific type of ad hominem. And with the relation further played up by his incredulous phrasing.

This was apparently perfectly acceptable to you as a rhetorical practice to avoid an argument, but outright brazen insults are bad enough that you felt the need to decry me.

I take issue with you not choosing to respond in a civil manner to what you view as a rhetorical sidestep. Had you chosen to do so politely, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Which is not to say you don't partake of your own civil snideness, as you did in this post, just that you had not at that time.

Call it a degradation of patience, call it irritation at being pigeonholed.

I mostly got a Bulimic vibe, but I have heard of Bulimics who cut themselves, so who knows.

Tee hee! Now I vomit to keep myself thin and I slash my wrists to ease emotional pain! AHAHAHAHA.

But we see hear that you made an assertion, subtly and deniably, that my judgment of you was premature, incorrect, and a meaning I cannot quite place half between childish and arrogant.

That's perfectly fine. But presumably you would have taken offense to someone saying, "After one post you don't have any fucking idea who I am, and the fact that you think you do shows you to be a childish arrogant dick." Despite it conveying the same thing.

In fact, it does not convey the same thing. My assertion was something along the lines of "first impressions are often inaccurate", while you seem to have taken it in a much different light. I doubt that other people would view the two phrases interchangably.

Regardless, you are not likely to convince people that you are being completely rational and logical with your arguments when you resort to insinuations that your opponent masturbates, much less convincing them that you're right.

[j0lt]

I did however assume that like me he was using harshness to complement and emphasize a point, but apparently the point was "I hate you." and not something relevant to the conversation at hand.

No.  The point is: you're being a jerk.  Stop being a jerk.

[Kaelik]

I take issue with you not choosing to respond in a civil manner to what you view as a rhetorical sidestep. Had you chosen to do so politely, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Well, yes, that's rather my point. You didn't feel it necessary to tell JaronK out, so either that means you think my wrongness makes him right, I'm going to say I don't think that's true from my judgment of you so far.

Or you felt like JaronK's sidestep wasn't actually wrong, because it wasn't uncivil. It was a civil insult, and therefore acceptable. Subtlety in cruelness is rewarded by not being the subject of these talking tos. (Though it's not much of a punishment, since I enjoy it far more than listening to JaronK weasel his way back to a different argument.)

Call it a degradation of patience, call it irritation at being pigeonholed.

Well I don't have any particular issue with snide insults, especially not when I called their presence before they showed up. I also don't find it surprising that you were irritated, I would be too at anyone claiming to know things about my personality so quickly, correct judgments or not. And I personally think that given the last serious of posts, I am increasingly born out in my judgment, though I may not have expressed it as well as I'd like.

Tee hee! Now I vomit to keep myself thin and I slash my wrists to ease emotional pain! AHAHAHAHA.

And masturbate while doing so apparently, I didn't bring it up, but you did.

In fact, it does not convey the same thing. My assertion was something along the lines of "first impressions are often inaccurate", while you seem to have taken it in a much different light. I doubt that other people would view the two phrases interchangably.

Maybe not interchangeably, but I think the assertion that your statement was meant only to convey inaccuracy of such judgment and not a certain degree of condemnation on the judge as well is something everyone can agree is quite false.

Regardless, you are not likely to convince people that you are being completely rational and logical with your arguments when you resort to insinuations that your opponent masturbates, much less convincing them that you're right.

I personally cannot understand why anyone would ignore the arguments presented merely because they don't appreciate the tone of the speaker. I would find myself unable to judge anyone under such circumstances, because as a general rules of thumb, I disagree with the tone of most people who's opinions I must judge, lawyers and politicians and doctors and RPG designers and philosophers, as a general rule I am disgusted by the tone of all these people.

It rarely interferes in discovering and evaluating their arguments. As for convincing. Well, I would expect the argument to do that for me, but I know I am living in a fantasy land. I also know that JaronK is quite immune to convincing of any kind.

[Prime32]

I personally cannot understand why anyone would ignore the arguments presented merely because they don't appreciate the tone of the speaker.

You weren't just arguing with an unpleasant tone. You were arguing and making ad hominem attacks against your opponent. Whether or not Jaron is an idiot has nothing to do with the argument. Idiots can provide fresh perspectives anyway.

[dither]

Idiots can provide fresh perspectives anyway.

I agree. You can learn some very interesting things from people who never bothered to learn anything themselves.

[Bozwevial]

Well, yes, that's rather my point. You didn't feel it necessary to tell JaronK out, so either that means you think my wrongness makes him right, I'm going to say I don't think that's true from my judgment of you so far.

Or you felt like JaronK's sidestep wasn't actually wrong, because it wasn't uncivil. It was a civil insult, and therefore acceptable. Subtlety in cruelness is rewarded by not being the subject of these talking tos. (Though it's not much of a punishment, since I enjoy it far more than listening to JaronK weasel his way back to a different argument.)

It may have escaped your attention, but I care very little about the argument being presented. If JaronK is avoiding the question, that's hardly an effective method of arguing his point. My point is that your opponents will find it hard to listen to your accusations, valid or otherwise, when you are not being civil about it.

Well I don't have any particular issue with snide insults, especially not when I called their presence before they showed up. I also don't find it surprising that you were irritated, I would be too at anyone claiming to know things about my personality so quickly, correct judgments or not. And I personally think that given the last serious of posts, I am increasingly born out in my judgment, though I may not have expressed it as well as I'd like.

Funny how civil insults seem to keep cropping up, isn't it?

And masturbate while doing so apparently, I didn't bring it up, but you did.

You didn't bring masturbating up?

JaronK, you are an idiot and you are too stupid to understand anything.

[...]

You have spent over a page arguing against nothing because you are too busy fapping off to your bonus feat argument that no one is fucking talking about!

Ad hominem attacks are rarely helpful.

Maybe not interchangeably, but I think the assertion that your statement was meant only to convey inaccuracy of such judgment and not a certain degree of condemnation on the judge as well is something everyone can agree is quite false.

Evidently, you know me better after reading a few of my posts than I do after my entire lifespan thus far. I wonder if "everyone" really shares your perspective.

I personally cannot understand why anyone would ignore the arguments presented merely because they don't appreciate the tone of the speaker. I would find myself unable to judge anyone under such circumstances, because as a general rules of thumb, I disagree with the tone of most people who's opinions I must judge, lawyers and politicians and doctors and RPG designers and philosophers, as a general rule I am disgusted by the tone of all these people.

It rarely interferes in discovering and evaluating their arguments. As for convincing. Well, I would expect the argument to do that for me, but I know I am living in a fantasy land. I also know that JaronK is quite immune to convincing of any kind.

I find it hard to agree with you that tone neither aids nor hinders in convincing an opponent. In fact, I would find it impossible to agree with you on that score, unless your opponent is a robot, or a creature with no emotions, neither of which is true.

Unless JaronK is really a robot and has been all along. Sneaky lil' tinnie.

[Kaelik]

Is anyone aware of the actual definition of ad hominem? I would have to say his argument is wrong because he is an idiot. I have never said that. I say both that he is an idiot, and that his argument is wrong, and then I explain why his argument is wrong. Sometimes I reverse the order, but explaining where the argument is wrong is universal.

[Bozwevial]

JaronK, you are an idiot and you are too stupid to understand anything.

Sidestepping an argument by making an attack on the opponent. Looks like an ad hominem attack to me.

[Kaelik]

JaronK, you are an idiot and you are too stupid to understand anything.

Sidestepping an argument by making an attack on the opponent. Looks like an ad hominem attack to me.

"If I told you that bonus feats must meet pre-reqs, and as soon as you understand that fact you would see that the PHB means Fighter whenever it says Cleric, you would rightly call that stupid.

Whether or not anything at all has to meet any pre reqs at all has absolutely nothing to do with whether the MM uses creature to mean monster. Nothing. Not a thing.

The absolute fact that the sky is blue has nothing to do with my claim that Zhentarim Skymages really means Zhentarim Forestmage.

Nothing at all."

That same post. I called him an idiot for arguing a strawman, then I called him out for arguing a strawman. I did not sidestep anything.

[dither]

I called him an idiot for arguing a strawman, then I called him out for arguing a strawman.

I thought you were trying to insult him to get him to back down. I think several people following this thread thought the same thing.

Maybe if your arguments were more tactful and less insulting, posters would be more inclined to puzzle out their meaning.

[Optimator]

Is there still no ignore function on this message board?  I can't find one anywhere and Kaelik is just too retarded to read.  Kaelik, please finish high school and grow up before posting anymore.


Your posts are bad and you should feel bad.

[Kaelik]

Is there still no ignore function on this message board?  I can't find one anywhere and Kaelik is just too retarded to read.  Kaelik, please finish high school and grow up before posting anymore.

Your posts are bad and you should feel bad.

See that would be an example of an ad hominem. Also, a silly one since "being in high school" is not generally considered an evil thing. At least when I make assumptions about people they are correct, you whiny cowardly bitch who accuses people of being banned posters in a deniable way because you are too much of a coward to face up to it when you are wrong.

[emissary666]

EVERYONE PLEASE IGNORE THE TROLL AND RESUME WITH THE THREAD TOPIC. KAELIK, PLEASE REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THE THREAD UNTIL YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED TROLLING BY THE POPULATION OF THE FORUM. IF A MODERATOR READS THIS, I REQUEST THAT YOU LOCK THIS THREAD IF THIS ARGUMENT CONTINUES

[Kaelik]

EVERYONE PLEASE IGNORE THE TROLL AND RESUME WITH THE THREAD TOPIC. KAELIK, PLEASE REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THE THREAD UNTIL YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED TROLLING BY THE POPULATION OF THE FORUM. IF A MODERATOR READS THIS, I REQUEST THAT YOU LOCK THIS THREAD IF THIS ARGUMENT CONTINUES

So we replaced fu popularity contests with not being allowed to speak unless the majority likes you?

Trolling has an actual definition. It is not anything close to what I have done. What I have done is pepper my argument with insults. Which is not trolling, and not flaming, and not ad hominem. It is using insults in the only context they are actually appropriate. To insult someone who has done something wrong.

Also, Please move your left pinky one key to the left and press down. Continue as normal.

[j0lt]

You're being a jerk.  Stop being a jerk.