Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The author of this list seems to be guilty of most of his complaints.
Perhaps I should make the comment bigger and bold it about making statements you are unprepared to defend? Not to mention personal insults?
How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?
Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.
I was not commenting about the person posting the OP. I was posting about the author of the list- let me quote myself:
The author of this list seems to be guilty of most of his complaints
But D.T. WAS commenting about the person posting the OP. He was the one I was addressing.
However, even when it comes to the author of the OP, what he does personally is irrelevant to the points he is making. If I was a smoker and was hired to give a lecture on the perils and downside of smoking, I could do that very competently. And my behavior would in no way change the accuracy of what I was teaching regardless of the fact that I did not follow my own advice.
One of the issues that is probably on that list--I didn't go back to look for one--is the tendency to make everything personal. To be unable to get past our disapproval of the person in order to study the concept offered and/or to evaluate it for its worth or lack thereof.
The author of this list seems to be guilty of most of his complaints.
Perhaps I should make the comment bigger and bold it about making statements you are unprepared to defend? Not to mention personal insults?
How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?
Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.
I was not commenting about the person posting the OP. I was posting about the author of the list- let me quote myself:
The author of this list seems to be guilty of most of his complaints
But D.T. WAS commenting about the person posting the OP. He was the one I was addressing.
However, even when it comes to the author of the OP, what he does personally is irrelevant to the points he is making. If I was a smoker and was hired to give a lecture on the perils and downside of smoking, I could do that very competently. And my behavior would in no way change the accuracy of what I was teaching regardless of the fact that I did not follow my own advice.
One of the issues that is probably on that list--I didn't go back to look for one--is the tendency to make everything personal. To be unable to get past our disapproval of the person in order to study the concept offered and/or to evaluate it for its worth or lack thereof.
Perhaps I should make the comment bigger and bold it about making statements you are unprepared to defend? Not to mention personal insults?
How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?
Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.
I was not commenting about the person posting the OP. I was posting about the author of the list- let me quote myself:
The author of this list seems to be guilty of most of his complaints
But D.T. WAS commenting about the person posting the OP. He was the one I was addressing.
However, even when it comes to the author of the OP, what he does personally is irrelevant to the points he is making. If I was a smoker and was hired to give a lecture on the perils and downside of smoking, I could do that very competently. And my behavior would in no way change the accuracy of what I was teaching regardless of the fact that I did not follow my own advice.
One of the issues that is probably on that list--I didn't go back to look for one--is the tendency to make everything personal. To be unable to get past our disapproval of the person in order to study the concept offered and/or to evaluate it for its worth or lack thereof.
EDIT: Okay, Siriously, I did go back to review my initial post to you. And apologize for a kneejerk reaction--I did misread your comment then to be directed at the author of the OP rather than the author of the list. Sorry about that. I do think the author's behavior does not change the accuracy of the points he is making, but I don't have a problem with pointing out inconsistencies in the argument. Please accept my apology though because I was out of line there.
In formal debate, all these concepts are taught and debaters learn how to avoid them because a good judge will score downward for use of any of them, along with a whole host of logical fallacies. As somebody said, the best of the best will occasionally slip and slide into these kinds of areas, but the best of the best will more often than not avoid them.
Generally the beginner or message board participant will do okay if they simply know and observe the following:
1. Make no statement of fact that you are unprepared to defend.
2. Stay on topic
3. Refrain from all personal insults regarding the other members and/or their associates and associations including ad hominem.
4. Know what a red herring or straw man argument is and avoid them as much as possible.
5. Provide as much information in your post as is necessary to be specific about what you are saying.
6. Avoid making every post a 'wall of text'. (This last one is a skill I have not yet consistently mastered and the error of which I am most often guilty.)
All excellent advice. Another tool I like to use is to utilize your opponents own standards. Its shocking how often people use double standards in debate and hang themselves with them. And you can hardly denounce a standard you just used, can you?
Except you somehow attributed this post to Occupied when it in fact was my post.But yes, it is sometimes helpful to be able to point out where people are contradicting themselves, etc. That is also a formal debate tool when your opponent gives you opportunity to use it.
How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?
Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.
I was not commenting about the person posting the OP. I was posting about the author of the list- let me quote myself:
The author of this list seems to be guilty of most of his complaints
But D.T. WAS commenting about the person posting the OP. He was the one I was addressing.
However, even when it comes to the author of the OP, what he does personally is irrelevant to the points he is making. If I was a smoker and was hired to give a lecture on the perils and downside of smoking, I could do that very competently. And my behavior would in no way change the accuracy of what I was teaching regardless of the fact that I did not follow my own advice.
One of the issues that is probably on that list--I didn't go back to look for one--is the tendency to make everything personal. To be unable to get past our disapproval of the person in order to study the concept offered and/or to evaluate it for its worth or lack thereof.
EDIT: Okay, Siriously, I did go back to review my initial post to you. And apologize for a kneejerk reaction--I did misread your comment then to be directed at the author of the OP rather than the author of the list. Sorry about that. I do think the author's behavior does not change the accuracy of the points he is making, but I don't have a problem with pointing out inconsistencies in the argument. Please accept my apology though because I was out of line there.
LOL....lets call it even.
The Rabbi breaks so many of these rules.I saw this posted elsewhere. Virtually every thread where libs post is plagued with all of these. And not a few as well from some conservatives.
Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics
Edited for copyright compliance.
You dont think calling someone "mr holier than thou" is not an accusation of hypocrisy? What is it?It's easy because it's a meaningless and stupid troll.Point #4.Thanks for illustrating Point #56!Thanks for illustrating Point #52!Everyone here is guilty including you, Mr. holier than thou. No one is perfect because there are no perfect arguments to be made in the messy, illogical and emotional world of American politics.
Wow, I had no idea this was this easy.
Now, I am not guilty of 52 because I did not claim hypocrisy, I sited the irrational nature of human politics, you cannot deny that.
I am not guilty of number four since faulty arguments are not at all irrelevant to the debate at hand.
You are not permitted in ant thread that discusses honest of posters, because you are so very dishonestThe Rabbi breaks so many of these rules.
The author of this list seems to be guilty of most of his complaints.
Perhaps I should make the comment bigger and bold it about making statements you are unprepared to defend? Not to mention personal insults?
How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?
Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.
You are not permitted in ant thread that discusses honest of posters, because you are so very dishonestThe Rabbi breaks so many of these rules.
The author of this list seems to be guilty of most of his complaints.
Perhaps I should make the comment bigger and bold it about making statements you are unprepared to defend? Not to mention personal insults?
How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?
Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.
Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.
what would have served the democrats on this board would have them show conservatives behaving badly. There are, sad to say, lots of examples of that to be found.The author of this list seems to be guilty of most of his complaints.
Perhaps I should make the comment bigger and bold it about making statements you are unprepared to defend? Not to mention personal insults?
How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?
Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.
Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.
A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.
If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.
what would have served the democrats on this board would have them show conservatives behaving badly. There are, sad to say, lots of examples of that to be found.Perhaps I should make the comment bigger and bold it about making statements you are unprepared to defend? Not to mention personal insults?
How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?
Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.
Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.
A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.
If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.
What we get instead is proof of his assertion that libs behave very badly. It is very funny.
And we get Foxfire behaving very very well, far better than I could dream of
Are you confusing sweet, little old lovable innocent me with somebody else?
Show me dishonesty?
Show me any one assertion you have made that you have backed up
The Rabbi posted this thing with the full expectation that he would sit on it and be accuser to all who found fault. I do not expect expertly argued rhetoric from those who post on this board, although it would be refreshing, so it is disingenuous to post such a topic condemning those who break the rules. This topic is nothing more than a troll and is therefore not an attempt at real debate and an affront to the art of rhetoric.The author of this list seems to be guilty of most of his complaints.
Perhaps I should make the comment bigger and bold it about making statements you are unprepared to defend? Not to mention personal insults?
How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?
Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.
Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.
A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.
If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.
Show me dishonesty?
Show me any one assertion you have made that you have backed up
The Rabbi posted this thing with the full expectation that he would sit on it and be accuser to all who found fault. I do not expect expertly argued rhetoric from those who post on this board, although it would be refreshing, so it is disingenuous to post such a topic condemning those who break the rules. This topic is nothing more than a troll and is therefore not an attempt at real debate and an affront to the art of rhetoric.Perhaps I should make the comment bigger and bold it about making statements you are unprepared to defend? Not to mention personal insults?
How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?
Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.
Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.
A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.
If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.
Show me dishonesty?
Show me any one assertion you have made that you have backed up
Son, when you are using opinion as evidence or a conclusion as evidence, all I have to do is challenge it and ask for evidence. You hate that.
The Rabbi posted this thing with the full expectation that he would sit on it and be accuser to all who found fault. I do not expect expertly argued rhetoric from those who post on this board, although it would be refreshing, so it is disingenuous to post such a topic condemning those who break the rules. This topic is nothing more than a troll and is therefore not an attempt at real debate and an affront to the art of rhetoric.How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?
Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.
Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.
A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.
If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.
Yes, The Rabbi set it up as a troll thread, and give him credit, it is succeeding.
The Rabbi posted this thing with the full expectation that he would sit on it and be accuser to all who found fault. I do not expect expertly argued rhetoric from those who post on this board, although it would be refreshing, so it is disingenuous to post such a topic condemning those who break the rules. This topic is nothing more than a troll and is therefore not an attempt at real debate and an affront to the art of rhetoric.Perhaps I should make the comment bigger and bold it about making statements you are unprepared to defend? Not to mention personal insults?
How is it a "personal insult" to point out that the OP is guilty of the same things he is accusing others of doing? Does that mean that the OP "personally insulted" everyone he accused of those things which would be every single Liberal?
Because the OP is not about the person posting the OP. The OP is about a concept. To turn that around and make into something personal about the person is a personal insult.
Is a minister not responsible for his/her sermon?
Clearly, Rabbi was on the attack as he specially pointed at liberals. When he did that, he took ownership and made himself a target.
A minister can preach a very good sermon about sin even as he himself is a sinner. Rabbi offered an interesting topic to discuss. I think most people don't see that as an attack. The OP was not about Rabbi but was about an article offered for discussion. It would have been useful had he left out his opening remarks about liberals, but if that was to open the door to show as illustration that his opening remark was correct, then he may have been pretty successful with that based on some of the responses so far.
If I was going to object to that opening remark, I would not attack him though. I would ask him to support it. But as it turned out, the support followed in the thread. Was that planned? I dunno.
