CDZ What's with the TL;DR thing?

[phoenyx]

So that you'll quit filling your posts with lots of nothing. They WANT to read your posts, but when you write an entire three page report that could be summarized in one sentence, nobody is going to bother. You are a PRO at expanding a single sentence into a massive post just to impress yourself, so nobody reads them. It also feels like you hold a dictionary while you do it(And you most likely do) just so you can attempt to sound like you have a larger vocabulary than you actually do. In other words, it's because your posts are long, pointless, and stupid, and people want you to know that so you'll eventually learn how to properly engage in debate without wasting everyone's time, but you're blaming everyone else for it, so you likely won't learn.

Hey PR, nice to see you again in what I'm now considering to be my primary residence in this forum . I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I. Could some of his posts use a bit of a trim? Maybe. I'm like him though- if I think a post is too long, I just don't read it. That doesn't mean that telling someone that their post is too long is necessarily a bad idea, for the very reason you bring up- they may well be interested in the poster's point if it were trimmed a tad (or a lot, depending). I don't mind constructive criticisms of this sort. It's when ad hominems start being used (idiot, stupid, etc.) that I tend to turn off.

At least you admit that you only like his posts because he's a far left nutjob.

Come on PR, let's not sink to ad hominem attacks. I came to this subforum to escape such attacks.

Main point here is that his posts are massive and could be trimmed down to a single sentence and still say the same thing, especially given that nothing added expands on the 'point'.

I have a feeling we may not agree on this- we'd need an example to debate the point though. Anyway, here's to hoping that we can dialogue more in the future.

It's not ad hominem if it's true. You like his posts because you're both lefties. I personally don't care if he's left or right, if someone's posts are pointlessly long with one sentence worth of content, just to feed the writer's ego, then that happens to be the case.

We don't need one of his posts to 'debate' over. Arguing over something that's a plainly observable fact is a waste of time. In fact, if you want to prove my point for me, you can just look at his post history. Have fun.

It is not ad hominem if it's true. Lol.

I'll grant that line is funny . But my point remains- ad hominem attacks, that is, attacks on posters rather than attacks on their arguments, tend to be counterproductive to any good discussion. They generally have the consequence of either killing the debate or have the other person respond in the same fashion, thus creating a flame war. It's for this reason that I've decided to spend most of my time in this sub forum, where the idea is to avoid such cycles.

 

[320 Years of History]

So you wanted to know because you wanted to know, is that it ;-)?

Yes. In a way similar to one's, say, in Car and Driver reading articles about cars one has not so much as even a passing interest in buying or driving.

You're not a car though. I don't think you're as uncaring of what others here think of you as you suggest. If you were, I doubt you'd have made this thread to begin with .

I do care about what some others think of me, but none of those others are total strangers to me as are all the people with whom I converse on this forum. As goes what I care about is the merit of my thoughts and what folks think of the ideas I present. The same is so of me and with regard to others posting here. That's why I try to focus the majority of my remarks on the qualitative merit of folks' expressed thoughts. I cannot judge the person, but I can judge the thoughts they share and their means of sharing them.

 

[phoenyx]

I sometimes find it best to use obfuscation as a form of protection.

I'm not keen to do that.

Neither am I. I tend to use it only against those whose primary purpose when conversing with me seems to be to vilify me. As Salmon Rushdie once said, "confusion to our enemies!" ;-).

I'd much prefer doing this than, say, using base insults on a person.

Yes, well, bandying banalites to berate others serves me not. If I'm of a mind to excoriate someone, I'll do it with a solid case that doesn't leave room for my castigation to be legitimately denied. There's no use to me or another in my merely tossing a vulgar invective at them.

I'm sure some in this forum here would disagree. Some seem to prefer to debate with their opponents in a more primitive way. Others just want to silence their opponents. These primitive tactics can be good at achieving these goals.

In contrast, if I show them the absurdity of their thinking/actions, perhaps they won't make the same mistake in the future. I don't necessarily expect them not to so err, but at least it makes it somewhat more possible for them not to if it's made clear to them how they went astray to begin with.

Indeed.

If I catch someone doing it, I tend to make a point of pointing it out. I'm content with simply embarrassing them.

If they are embarrassed, well, that's one them. Everyone makes mistakes. The mature way to deal with them is to own them rather trying to defend them. Case in point.....@holos recently remarked that one of my posts struck him/her as being incoherent and described what made it be that way. Quite simply, the description was accurate, so I just agreed with him. I was mildly embarrassed, but not because Holos pointed out the "mess" that was my writing, but rather because I'd let myself write it and not revise it so that it wasn't incoherent, but that's on me. There's no reason for me to take umbrage with him over his having pointed it out; I wrote that crap, not someone else, and it was sadly there for all the world to see.

It's great when an opponent can recognize their mistakes. Much harder to maintain a dialogue when an opponent refuses to do so. You can get to the point where you just feel like you're wasting your time with them...

 

[320 Years of History]

It is not ad hominem if it's true. Lol.

True. But one must make a cogent case that "it" is true. Without the case to support the assertion, "it" is just ad hominem. One can try to rely on "everyone can see "it's" so," as the basis for support, but that's just argumentum ad populum.

 

[phoenyx]

So you wanted to know because you wanted to know, is that it ;-)?

Yes. In a way similar to one's, say, in Car and Driver reading articles about cars one has not so much as even a passing interest in buying or driving.

You're not a car though. I don't think you're as uncaring of what others here think of you as you suggest. If you were, I doubt you'd have made this thread to begin with .

I do care about what some others think of me, but none of those others are total strangers to me as are all the people with whom I converse on this forum.

Is everyone in this forum a total stranger to you? Put another way, do you really believe you can learn nothing from a person by what they tell you in text?

As goes what I care about is the merit of my thoughts and what folks think of the ideas I present.

Perhaps you are trying to separate the ideas you hold from your identity? I would argue that a person's ideas is the core of their identity.

The same is so of me and with regard to others posting here. That's why I try to focus the majority of my remarks on the qualitative merit of folks' expressed thoughts. I cannot judge the person, but I can judge the thoughts they share and their means of sharing them.

Again, I don't really see the difference. I'd say the most fundamental aspect of a person is the ideas they have. Because of this, I believe if you judge a person's ideas, you are judging them. Granted, a person has -many- ideas, and I think no one can know all the ideas a person has, so we are generally only judging a small subset of their total ideas, so in a sense only judging a part of them. But while it may be a partial judgement, it's still a judgement.

 

[320 Years of History]

I tend to use it only against those whose primary purpose when conversing with me seems to be to vilify me.

I just feel dirty doing that. Believe me, I've done it, and it at times crosses my mind to do it. You wrote about my caring what folks here think of me. What matters more to me is what I think of myself, and am not living up to the standards I set for myself when I resort to banal insults. One must have a high degree of self respect before one can respect others.

Some seem to prefer to debate with their opponents in a more primitive way.

I have to agree with that.

Others just want to silence their opponents. These primitive tactics can be good at achieving these goals.

Well, here that will work with me. I see my refusing to interact with them as more likely their loss rather than mine. I don't say that self-aggrandizing. Everyone has something to offer, some a lot and others not so much.

How does one tell when another has something of value to offer one? By considering the substance of the challenge they present. An insult is a challenge of sorts, but there's no substance to it. If that's all someone has to send my way, they have little or nothing to offer me; thus interacting with them wastes my time.

You can get to the point where you just feel like you're wasting your time with them...

...And following from my preceding paragraph...I thank the folks who created USMB for including an "ignore" feature. It's just what one needs to prevent oneself from being "led into temptation" and from wasting one's time with the drivel that some folks post incessantly.

 

[320 Years of History]

Is everyone in this forum a total stranger to you?

Yes.

do you really believe you can learn nothing from a person by what they tell you in text?

No.

'd say the most fundamental aspect of a person is the ideas they have. Because of this, I believe if you judge a person's ideas, you are judging them.

I don't feel that way at all. Plenty of folks are lovely people, but they and they and nearly everyone else know their ideas about most things have no real merit. These are folks who are either quite pleasant, or at least innocuous, to be around even though they cognitively dull/boring, being barely able to reason their way out of paper bag having holes on both ends.

 

[L.K.Eder]

It is not ad hominem if it's true. Lol.

True. But one must make a cogent case that "it" is true. Without the case to support the assertion, "it" is just ad hominem. One can try to rely on "everyone can see "it's" so," as the basis for support, but that's just argumentum ad populum.

That line above i quoted from another poster, as it is ludicrous. If you argue vs. the person making an argument then it is ad hominem. Basta. You can then further debate if the ad hominem argument was fallacious or not, but it will remain an ad hominem argument.

 

[320 Years of History]

It is not ad hominem if it's true. Lol.

True. But one must make a cogent case that "it" is true. Without the case to support the assertion, "it" is just ad hominem. One can try to rely on "everyone can see "it's" so," as the basis for support, but that's just argumentum ad populum.

That line above i quoted from another poster, as it is ludicrous. If you argue vs. the person making an argument then it is ad hominem. Basta. You can then further debate if the ad hominem argument was fallacious or not, but it will remain an ad hominem argument.

??? Arguing against another person is not ad hominem at all; arguing against other individuals what debating is. Merely engaging in a battle of wits/argumentation against does not inherently introduce ad hominem lines of argument or make anything be ad hominem. I wasn't differing with you. I merely expounded upon your statement.

Arguing that a characteristic pertaining to a person boosts or lessons the merit of an argument/assertion (be it the person's own argument or another's argument) is an ad hominem line of reasoning and it is fallacious in all cases except when a trait of the person being used to add/detract from the merit of a claim is germane to the claim and that trait is in fact accurately among those the person has. A line of reasoning is only an ad hominem IF it is used as an argument in itself. Just using it in an argument or on the school playground to call someone a “jerk” for example is NOT an ad hominem. However, the poisoning the well fallacy is not as subject to this restriction.

• Billy is a jerk. --> That's not an ad hominem argument; it's not an argument of any sort. It's merely a claim, one that's unsubstantiated and insulting.
• Billy is a jerk because he likes Trump. --> That's a claim and argument. It's ad hominem because merely liking Trump tells us what Billy thinks not how he behaves, and "Billy is a jerk" is an existential assertion.
• Billy is a jerk because he slapped Lucy for no reason. --> That's a claim and an argument. It's ad hominem, but, assuming Billy did slap Lucy for no reason, it's also a valid and sound argument for Billy's being a jerk.
  
  Is the argument by itself conclusive? No, not at all. Billy may merely have had a rare behavioral lapse, making him a jerk at that instant, but not in general, which is the implication of the statement. Lucy may have unbeknownst to others given Billy a good reason for slapping her. From what's given in the statement, we have no way to know.

Types of ad hominem arguments:

• Ad Hominem (Abusive) -- The same thing is going on when the conclusion of of an ad hominem argument is laudatory, although that form is sometimes called the inverse ad hominem.
  
• Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)
• Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association/Poisoning the Well)
  
• Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)

 

[phoenyx]

I tend to use it only against those whose primary purpose when conversing with me seems to be to vilify me.

I just feel dirty doing that. Believe me, I've done it, and it at times crosses my mind to do it. You wrote about my caring what folks here think of me. What matters more to me is what I think of myself, and am not living up to the standards I set for myself when I resort to banal insults. One must have a high degree of self respect before one can respect others.

I think that many would argue that insulting others brings no disrespect upon themselves, but I'm with you on this one. A quote from George Carlin comes to mind:
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Others just want to silence their opponents. These primitive tactics can be good at achieving these goals.

Well, here that will work with me. I see my refusing to interact with them as more likely their loss rather than mine. I [wouldn't] say that's self-aggrandizing. Everyone has something to offer, some a lot and others not so much.

How does one tell when another has something of value to offer one? By considering the substance of the challenge they present. An insult is a challenge of sorts, but there's no substance to it. If that's all someone has to send my way, they have little or nothing to offer me; thus interacting with them wastes my time.

Agreed. This reminds me of Monty Python's Argument Clinic. I think one of the best punchlines in it is a subtle one:
**Student: I came here for a good argument
Professor: No you didn't, you came here for an argument**

Virtually anyone can come up with an argument. It's the good ones that are hard to come by.

You can get to the point where you just feel like you're wasting your time with them...

...And following from my preceding paragraph...I thank the folks who created USMB for including an "ignore" feature. It's just what one needs to prevent oneself from being "led into temptation" and from wasting one's time with the drivel that some folks post incessantly.

Agreed

 

[phoenyx]

Is everyone in this forum a total stranger to you?

Yes.

So you're saying that you don't know anything about anyone in this forum ?

Put another way, do you really believe you can learn nothing from a person by what they tell you in text?

No.

I'm glad you agree with me on that point anyway. So are you saying that you can learn things from people who tell you things in text, but learn nothing about the people themselves?

I'd say the most fundamental aspect of a person is the ideas they have. Because of this, I believe if you judge a person's ideas, you are judging them.

I don't feel that way at all. Plenty of folks are lovely people, but they and nearly everyone else know their ideas about most things have no real merit. These are folks who are either quite pleasant, or at least innocuous, to be around even though they [are] cognitively dull/boring, being barely able to reason their way out of paper bag having holes on both ends.

Can you substantiate that argument with an actual example of a person, perhaps someone famous? I personally don't believe your argument. I firmly believe that for a person to be lovely, they must have lovely qualities about them, and those qualities couldn't exist without a moral code, a moral code that consists of ideas no how to behave in an agreeable fashion with others.

 

[phoenyx]

It is not ad hominem if it's true. Lol.

True. But one must make a cogent case that "it" is true. Without the case to support the assertion, "it" is just ad hominem. One can try to rely on "everyone can see "it's" so," as the basis for support, but that's just argumentum ad populum.

That line above i quoted from another poster, as it is ludicrous. If you argue vs. the person making an argument then it is ad hominem. Basta. You can then further debate if the ad hominem argument was fallacious or not, but it will remain an ad hominem argument.

??? Arguing against another person is not ad hominem at all; arguing against other individuals what debating is.

I think the point L.K. was trying to make is that an ad hominem is an argument that is directed against a person -or- a position. An ad hominem is necessarily directed towards the person.

 

[320 Years of History]

TY for the "[wouldn't]" edit. I won't pretend that I proofread what I post on here. I don't.

A quote from George Carlin comes to mind:
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

That's among my favorite quotes. It's been variously attributed to Twain and Kant. I didn't know Carlin too had famously used it. Now I know. I'll classify it as yet another piece of knowledge I'll retain solely for sake of knowing it. <winks>

• Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
  
• It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.
  
• Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

I do not know who first said which version of the quote. I do know it's a damn good axiom, good enough to repeat, thus making it irrelevant what dead thinker first uttered it. LOL

 

[320 Years of History]

So you're saying that you don't know anything about anyone in this forum ?

I know only what they convey about their thinking as shown by the quality of ideas/arguments they post. Outside of that, I don't know anything about anyone here.

So are you saying that you can learn things from people who tell you things in text, but learn nothing about the people themselves?

In the absolute and abstract, of course, I can learn something from people who communicate to me in writing. From reading their writing I can learn about their ideas, their modes of and approach to cognition. Do I know from that whether, say, they are fun to go sailing with, hard working overall, etc? Not at all.

Can you substantiate that argument with an actual example of a person, perhaps someone famous? I personally don't believe your argument. I firmly believe that for a person to be lovely, they must have lovely qualities about them, and those qualities couldn't exist without a moral code, a moral code that consists of ideas no how to behave in an agreeable fashion with others.

I'm not about to publicly say something that's potentially slanderous about a specific individual whom I know and who is also famous. LOL I guess you had to ask, however...nothing to lose by asking. Right? LOL I can offer a hypothetical person and hope that will do.

Consider a relative or acquaintance you have whose company you really enjoy....until your interaction with them gets around to discussing topics that call for complex circumspection and analysis. When that time arrives, their contribution to the conversation is on par with that of 15 year old. That would be one type of person to whom I referred. Another character who'd fall into the general category is the person who is aware of "all the best advice in the world," but who in their own life rarely if ever applies any of it.

Of those two person-types, the first may merely be ignorant, but the second is not. The latter individual is just stupid. However, both of them can be a ton of fun to go bar hopping, camping, skydiving, to the movies, encounter at parties, etc., and either may have a few areas where they are quite knowledgeable. Both persons can easily make for pleasant company, thus lovely to be around. If they are honest with themselves (i.e., have a high degree of integrity and self-respect) and others about the limits of their mental acuity, they know they aren't among the brighter lights in the candelabra and they won't pretend to be by engaging/participating in activities where they are out of their depth. In short, I guess one'd say of them that they are "comfortable in their own skin," and that's what makes them lovely people, lovely to be around.

An ad hominem is necessarily directed towards the person.

No, it's not necessarily directed toward a person, although many such remarks are. What it necessarily is is based upon a person. One can call that a subtle distinction if one wants, but it's a distinction that matters as goes identifying what is and is not an ad hominem remark.

"Father O'Leary said that monkey can't swim, so it must be so that monkeys can't swim." That is an ad hominem line of argumentation. It's directed at nobody; it merely uses Father O'Leary's credibility as the basis for believing monkeys cannot swim.

FWIW, I can't think of any ad hominem attack that isn't aimed at someone, but the other types of ad hominem statements/arguments need not do that at all. Even with an ad hominem attack arguments, however, though someone is impugned as part of it, disparaging that person isn't the aim of the argument. The point is still to deny (or in the case of inverse ad hominem arguments support) the merit of a claim. If there's no claim involved other than the one that asperses another individual, that's not an argument of any sort, that's just an insult. And when it comes to insults, they are all personal. One can't very well insult a chair or dog.


Interesting, nearly all insults depend upon the object of the insult holding the insulter and his/her audience in high enough regard that the person being insulted gives a damn and thus feels hurt. A small class of insults depend on the object caring enough about themselves to feel hurt. That's why I find the insults I see on USMB are frustrating not hurtful. I mean really...How hurt can anyone be insulted by disparaging remarks from folks, apparent cads and curs, whom one does not know? Their remarks are nothing but annoying, interruptions in the flow of substantive discourse. Thus the "ignore" feature's facility; it removes the disturbing insipidity those folks interject.

P.S.
There is, of course, the somewhat indirectly insulting sort of remark as well. It's the one that is just too sophomoric to respond to. (see blue text added by another member here.) That's called insulting another's intelligence by saying something vacuous.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You've always had the ability to make me smile . It looks like he never responded to this post of yours, so I will. Perhaps I missed something, but I tend to agree with your first sentence. You know I'm a lefty, so I think it's hardly surprising that I would find the premise that you ascribe to his OP as valid. From my short conversation with him on the subject, I'm not sure that -he- considers himself a lefty, so perhaps he took offense. Anyway, if that first sentence didn't offend him, I imagine that the second and third one that he may well have. I would have responded, though. I almost always did with you. I think it's pretty hard not to offend opponents online in some way or another (I'm sure I've done my part here), but you tend to back down when you really get going (for instance the whole "nutjob" thing), and that's why I keep on responding to you .

Whether he considers himself a lefty or not, he's clearly one.

Pumpkin knows best eh ;-)?

He's just not a lefty that has no idea how the economy works. If that were the case, he'd be a Socialist~

Like lil 'ol me, huh ;-)?

I don't back down. I just don't need to keep reiterating that lefties and Socialists are nutjobs, because it's an easily observable fact.

Careful, those are fighting words .

It's pretty clear that he's trying to impress himself, his posting style has won over far fewer people(If any at all) than it has turned away.

He seems to be fine with the amount of people that don't mind the way he posts. Not everything is a numbers game.

A skilled writer tries to target as wide of an audience as possible, and that being the case, it would make far more sense to not waste everyone's time fluffing out his post.

He feels that the way he writes his posts is fine. He generally doesn't use base insults, which is what I primarily object to in posts as you know, and, the economy aside, he and I tend to agree on things, which is certainly another plus.

People don't use most of the words he goes out of his way jam into his post because it hinders a conversation for someone to look it up.

I think he may have mentioned to me in the past that he's around 60. Different generations communicate differently. I also think he's fairly well educated. My guess is that he's not going out of his way to use words that to many are exotic- my guess is that's just the way he communicates in general.

People don't make long speeches in the midst of a conversation because it prevents people from being interested. Sure, someone could be excited at the start, but about the time you realize most of the words are fluff, you realize it's a gigantic waste of time. As a writer, you should try NOT to waste everyone's time, you should be clear, concise, and to the point. He is none of those things, and there's no point to that other to impress himself with his post size.

Tell me, does he remind you of anyone you know ;-)?

I speak to 60, 70, 80 year olds who don't use those words. Passing it off like Banality and excoriate were normal words to use in a conversation is plane ignorance. Most people avoid words that are longer to type or say in favor of shorter ones so a conversation or post is quicker and smoother.

You're also speaking as though I'm saying he can't or shouldn't be able to post incompetently when that wasn't my argument in the first post. My point is that it makes no sense and he's trying to impress himself. I'm perfectly fine with him trying to impress himself and inflate his ego with his posts, he just shouldn't make a thread complaining about people not bothering to waste their time reading said posts if he insists on posting that way.

No, most people learn not make needlessly inflated posts when people keep saying it's too long and they didn't read it, so no, he doesn't remind me of anyone.

 

[OldLady]

You've always had the ability to make me smile . It looks like he never responded to this post of yours, so I will. Perhaps I missed something, but I tend to agree with your first sentence. You know I'm a lefty, so I think it's hardly surprising that I would find the premise that you ascribe to his OP as valid. From my short conversation with him on the subject, I'm not sure that -he- considers himself a lefty, so perhaps he took offense. Anyway, if that first sentence didn't offend him, I imagine that the second and third one that he may well have. I would have responded, though. I almost always did with you. I think it's pretty hard not to offend opponents online in some way or another (I'm sure I've done my part here), but you tend to back down when you really get going (for instance the whole "nutjob" thing), and that's why I keep on responding to you .

Whether he considers himself a lefty or not, he's clearly one.

Pumpkin knows best eh ;-)?

He's just not a lefty that has no idea how the economy works. If that were the case, he'd be a Socialist~

Like lil 'ol me, huh ;-)?

I don't back down. I just don't need to keep reiterating that lefties and Socialists are nutjobs, because it's an easily observable fact.

Careful, those are fighting words .

It's pretty clear that he's trying to impress himself, his posting style has won over far fewer people(If any at all) than it has turned away.

He seems to be fine with the amount of people that don't mind the way he posts. Not everything is a numbers game.

A skilled writer tries to target as wide of an audience as possible, and that being the case, it would make far more sense to not waste everyone's time fluffing out his post.

He feels that the way he writes his posts is fine. He generally doesn't use base insults, which is what I primarily object to in posts as you know, and, the economy aside, he and I tend to agree on things, which is certainly another plus.

People don't use most of the words he goes out of his way jam into his post because it hinders a conversation for someone to look it up.

I think he may have mentioned to me in the past that he's around 60. Different generations communicate differently. I also think he's fairly well educated. My guess is that he's not going out of his way to use words that to many are exotic- my guess is that's just the way he communicates in general.

People don't make long speeches in the midst of a conversation because it prevents people from being interested. Sure, someone could be excited at the start, but about the time you realize most of the words are fluff, you realize it's a gigantic waste of time. As a writer, you should try NOT to waste everyone's time, you should be clear, concise, and to the point. He is none of those things, and there's no point to that other to impress himself with his post size.

Tell me, does he remind you of anyone you know ;-)?

I speak to 60, 70, 80 year olds who don't use those words. Passing it off like Banality and excoriate were normal words to use in a conversation is plane ignorance. Most people avoid words that are longer to type or say in favor of shorter ones so a conversation or post is quicker and smoother.

You're also speaking as though I'm saying he can't or shouldn't be able to post incompetently when that wasn't my argument in the first post. My point is that it makes no sense and he's trying to impress himself. I'm perfectly fine with him trying to impress himself and inflate his ego with his posts, he just shouldn't make a thread complaining about people not bothering to waste their time reading said posts if he insists on posting that way.

No, most people learn not make needlessly inflated posts when people keep saying it's too long and they didn't read it, so no, he doesn't remind me of anyone.

Banality and excoriate ARE "normal" words. 320 uses plenty that aren't, but you should know those two. You'd best keep reading. And it's plain ignorance.

 

[phoenyx]

TY for the "[wouldn't]" edit. I won't pretend that I proofread what I post on here. I don't.

A quote from George Carlin comes to mind:
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

That's among my favorite quotes. It's been variously attributed to Twain and Kant. I didn't know Carlin too had famously used it. Now I know. I'll classify it as yet another piece of knowledge I'll retain solely for sake of knowing it. <winks>

• Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
  
• It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.
  
• Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

I do not know who first said which version of the quote. I do know it's a damn good axiom, good enough to repeat, thus making it irrelevant what dead thinker first uttered it. LOL

I agree it's good enough to repeat, but I have a thing for quoting original sources. I guess it goes back to the fact that I like to know where sayings come from, so I look them up and pass on the knowledge to audiences thinking that there might be someone out there that feels the same way .

 

[phoenyx]

So you're saying that you don't know anything about anyone in this forum ?

I know only what they convey about their thinking as shown by the quality of ideas/arguments they post. Outside of that, I don't know anything about anyone here.

Google defines a stranger as "a person whom one does not know or with whom one is not familiar". I would think that a "total stranger" is someone who one definitely doesn't know at all. But can you really say that you don't know anyone at all here?

So are you saying that you can learn things from people who tell you things in text, but learn nothing about the people themselves?

In the absolute and abstract, of course, I can learn something from people who communicate to me in writing. From reading their writing I can learn about their ideas, their modes of and approach to cognition. Do I know from that whether, say, they are fun to go sailing with, hard working overall, etc? Not at all.

I can't speak for your "etc.", but as to what you mentioned, do you need to know those things to consider them a friend?

Can you substantiate that argument with an actual example of a person, perhaps someone famous? I personally don't believe your argument. I firmly believe that for a person to be lovely, they must have lovely qualities about them, and those qualities couldn't exist without a moral code, a moral code that consists of ideas no how to behave in an agreeable fashion with others.

I'm not about to publicly say something that's potentially slanderous about a specific individual whom I know and who is also famous. LOL I guess you had to ask, however...nothing to lose by asking. Right? LOL

Well, it's not that I wanted to put you on the hot spot, I just wanted to see if you could substantiate your claim...

I can offer a hypothetical person and hope that will do.

Consider a relative or acquaintance you have whose company you really enjoy....until your interaction with them gets around to discussing topics that call for complex circumspection and analysis. When that time arrives, their contribution to the conversation is on par with that of a 15 year old. That would be one type of person to whom I referred.

I'm not saying that someone whose company you really enjoy, say, sailing, has to be good at complex circumspection and analysis. What I'm saying is that a person's core identity is the ideas that constitute their morality, or ethics.

Another character who'd fall into the general category is the person who is aware of "all the best advice in the world," but who in their own life rarely if ever applies any of it.

I can certainly agree that people have various strengths and weaknesses.

Of those two person-types, the first may merely be ignorant, but the second is not. The latter individual is just stupid.

I've always shied away from such labels. And yes, I know I just quoted George Carlin talking about an idiot . But he wasn't referring to anyone specific and he was going for humour. But let's go into the term since you brought it up. Google defines stupid as "lacking intelligence or common sense", but that just leads to more ambiguous words. Who defines what constitutes intelligence or common sense? Personally, unless I'm particularly upset, I shy away from those terms, and almost never use them online, since I have time to compose more civilized posts. I fundamentally believe that calling anyone these terms is doing them a disservice. I believe that if you look at a human being from a biological perspective, every single one is amazing- for more interesting then, say, an ant. And yet, frequently, humans treat each other so very poorly.

However, both of them can be a ton of fun to go bar hopping, camping, skydiving, to the movies, encounter at parties, etc., and either may have a few areas where they are quite knowledgeable. Both persons can easily make for pleasant company, thus lovely to be around. If they are honest with themselves (i.e., have a high degree of integrity and self-respect) and others about the limits of their mental acuity, they know they aren't among the brighter lights in the candelabra and they won't pretend to be by engaging/participating in activities where they are out of their depth. In short, I guess one'd say of them that they are "comfortable in their own skin," and that's what makes them lovely people, lovely to be around.

I think you'd agree with me that that's the most important aspect of a person. Given enough time, as well as their consent, you can educate a person regarding the niceties of life, but the core identity of person is much harder to change.

An ad hominem is necessarily directed towards the person.

No, it's not necessarily directed toward a person, although many such remarks are.

Went back to the google definition, you're right- an ad hominem attack is directed -against- a person, but not necessary against (or towards) the person you're conversing with.

What it necessarily is is based upon a person. One can call that a subtle distinction if one wants, but it's a distinction that matters as goes identifying what is and is not an ad hominem remark.

"Father O'Leary said that monkey can't swim, so it must be so that monkeys can't swim." That is an ad hominem line of argumentation. It's directed at nobody; it merely uses Father O'Leary's credibility as the basis for believing monkeys cannot swim.

FWIW, I can't think of any ad hominem attack that isn't aimed at someone, but the other types of ad hominem statements/arguments need not do that at all. Even with an ad hominem attack arguments, however, though someone is impugned as part of it, disparaging that person isn't the aim of the argument. The point is still to deny (or in the case of inverse ad hominem arguments support) the merit of a claim. If there's no claim involved other than the one that asperses another individual, that's not an argument of any sort, that's just an insult. And when it comes to insults, they are all personal. One can't very well insult a chair or dog.

Have you ever actually -owned- a dog? From my experience, not only can a dog be insulted, a dog can insult others itself . And also play on your emotions, fine tuning their actions to get the responses they're looking for (my sister's dog is a pro at getting me to take it out ). As to a chair, they may not have feelings, but I would argue that they can certainly be insulted, so long as we're going by google's definition:
"speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse."

Interestingy, nearly all insults depend upon the object of the insult holding the insulter and his/her audience in high enough regard that the person being insulted gives a damn and thus feels hurt. A small class of insults depend on the object caring enough about themselves to feel hurt. That's why I find the insults I see on USMB are frustrating not hurtful. I mean really...How hurt can anyone be insulted by disparaging remarks from folks, apparent cads and curs, whom one does not know? Their remarks are nothing but annoying, interruptions in the flow of substantive discourse. Thus the "ignore" feature's facility; it removes the disturbing insipidity those folks interject.

I'm certainly a fan of the "ignore" feature, though I'm happy that I have only used it once here. As to you only finding insults frustrating not hurtful, alright. Personally, I know I can be hurt by insults even if they're only in an online forum. That being said, I also know that if someone is responding to me, I have a certain amount of leverage to modify their behaviour. The most useful I've found is to make it clear that I don't appreciate the insults. You might say it's an initial shot across the bow. It doesn't always work, however. At this point, I've seen others decide that 2 can play the insult game, frequently resulting in fiery skirmishes. I prefer a different approach- I start to edit out the insults, putting in [insult removed] in place of the insult. I -have- found it humorous when those insulters have protested me removing their insults. As far as I'm concerned, I'm actually being fairly lenient with them by still responding to them. When I found this particular sub forum on here, however, I came to think that this would be my main residence on USMB- finally, a place here where insults are frowned upon and major flamers are dealt with by moderators.

P.S.
There is, of course, the somewhat indirectly insulting sort of remark as well.

So long as a person isn't using the base insults (things like stupid, idiot, etc.), I'm alright with it. I certainly can't claim that I haven't insulted people indirectly. My civility has limits .

 

[phoenyx]

You've always had the ability to make me smile . It looks like he never responded to this post of yours, so I will. Perhaps I missed something, but I tend to agree with your first sentence. You know I'm a lefty, so I think it's hardly surprising that I would find the premise that you ascribe to his OP as valid. From my short conversation with him on the subject, I'm not sure that -he- considers himself a lefty, so perhaps he took offense. Anyway, if that first sentence didn't offend him, I imagine that the second and third one that he may well have. I would have responded, though. I almost always did with you. I think it's pretty hard not to offend opponents online in some way or another (I'm sure I've done my part here), but you tend to back down when you really get going (for instance the whole "nutjob" thing), and that's why I keep on responding to you .

Whether he considers himself a lefty or not, he's clearly one.

Pumpkin knows best eh ;-)?

He's just not a lefty that has no idea how the economy works. If that were the case, he'd be a Socialist~

Like lil 'ol me, huh ;-)?

I don't back down. I just don't need to keep reiterating that lefties and Socialists are nutjobs, because it's an easily observable fact.

Careful, those are fighting words .

It's pretty clear that he's trying to impress himself, his posting style has won over far fewer people(If any at all) than it has turned away.

He seems to be fine with the amount of people that don't mind the way he posts. Not everything is a numbers game.

A skilled writer tries to target as wide of an audience as possible, and that being the case, it would make far more sense to not waste everyone's time fluffing out his post.

He feels that the way he writes his posts is fine. He generally doesn't use base insults, which is what I primarily object to in posts as you know, and, the economy aside, he and I tend to agree on things, which is certainly another plus.

People don't use most of the words he goes out of his way jam into his post because it hinders a conversation for someone to look it up.

I think he may have mentioned to me in the past that he's around 60. Different generations communicate differently. I also think he's fairly well educated. My guess is that he's not going out of his way to use words that to many are exotic- my guess is that's just the way he communicates in general.

People don't make long speeches in the midst of a conversation because it prevents people from being interested. Sure, someone could be excited at the start, but about the time you realize most of the words are fluff, you realize it's a gigantic waste of time. As a writer, you should try NOT to waste everyone's time, you should be clear, concise, and to the point. He is none of those things, and there's no point to that other to impress himself with his post size.

Tell me, does he remind you of anyone you know ;-)?

I speak to 60, 70, 80 year olds who don't use those words. Passing it off like Banality and excoriate were normal words to use in a conversation is plane ignorance. Most people avoid words that are longer to type or say in favor of shorter ones so a conversation or post is quicker and smoother.

Yeah, I do that, and I try to use words that are more commonly known as well. That being said, if I'm dealing with someone who I have a somewhat hostile relationship with, I may use higher end words- I'm somewhat fond of the saying "confusion to our enemies!", I'm sure you'll see my reasoning here. I definitely think it beats using base insults.

You're also speaking as though I'm saying he can't or shouldn't be able to post incompetently when that wasn't my argument in the first post.

I'm not saying that at all.

My point is that it makes no sense and he's trying to impress himself.

He makes sense to me. I may find some of his posts a bit too long, but then I might be able to level the same criticism against myself at times.

I'm perfectly fine with him trying to impress himself and inflate his ego with his posts,

You've made the assertion that he's doing this numerous times, but I haven't found any evidence for it. I think he's just doing his best to try to communicate certain concepts, which I assume is what most if not everyone else here is trying to do as well.

he just shouldn't make a thread complaining about people not bothering to waste their time reading said posts if he insists on posting that way.

Seems to me he made the thread because he wanted to learn why people were telling him TL;DR. I think he's essentially gotten his answer now, though there may be a few finer points left. Either that, or he's just enjoying the somewhat sidetracked conversation that continues .

No, most people learn not make needlessly inflated posts when people keep saying it's too long and they didn't read it, so no, he doesn't remind me of anyone.

I see. I was thinking that perhaps he might remind you of me in a certain Economics thread ;-).

 

[phoenyx]

You've always had the ability to make me smile . It looks like he never responded to this post of yours, so I will. Perhaps I missed something, but I tend to agree with your first sentence. You know I'm a lefty, so I think it's hardly surprising that I would find the premise that you ascribe to his OP as valid. From my short conversation with him on the subject, I'm not sure that -he- considers himself a lefty, so perhaps he took offense. Anyway, if that first sentence didn't offend him, I imagine that the second and third one that he may well have. I would have responded, though. I almost always did with you. I think it's pretty hard not to offend opponents online in some way or another (I'm sure I've done my part here), but you tend to back down when you really get going (for instance the whole "nutjob" thing), and that's why I keep on responding to you .

Whether he considers himself a lefty or not, he's clearly one.

Pumpkin knows best eh ;-)?

He's just not a lefty that has no idea how the economy works. If that were the case, he'd be a Socialist~

Like lil 'ol me, huh ;-)?

I don't back down. I just don't need to keep reiterating that lefties and Socialists are nutjobs, because it's an easily observable fact.

Careful, those are fighting words .

It's pretty clear that he's trying to impress himself, his posting style has won over far fewer people(If any at all) than it has turned away.

He seems to be fine with the amount of people that don't mind the way he posts. Not everything is a numbers game.

A skilled writer tries to target as wide of an audience as possible, and that being the case, it would make far more sense to not waste everyone's time fluffing out his post.

He feels that the way he writes his posts is fine. He generally doesn't use base insults, which is what I primarily object to in posts as you know, and, the economy aside, he and I tend to agree on things, which is certainly another plus.

People don't use most of the words he goes out of his way jam into his post because it hinders a conversation for someone to look it up.

I think he may have mentioned to me in the past that he's around 60. Different generations communicate differently. I also think he's fairly well educated. My guess is that he's not going out of his way to use words that to many are exotic- my guess is that's just the way he communicates in general.

People don't make long speeches in the midst of a conversation because it prevents people from being interested. Sure, someone could be excited at the start, but about the time you realize most of the words are fluff, you realize it's a gigantic waste of time. As a writer, you should try NOT to waste everyone's time, you should be clear, concise, and to the point. He is none of those things, and there's no point to that other to impress himself with his post size.

Tell me, does he remind you of anyone you know ;-)?

I speak to 60, 70, 80 year olds who don't use those words. Passing it off like Banality and excoriate were normal words to use in a conversation is plane ignorance. Most people avoid words that are longer to type or say in favor of shorter ones so a conversation or post is quicker and smoother.

You're also speaking as though I'm saying he can't or shouldn't be able to post incompetently when that wasn't my argument in the first post. My point is that it makes no sense and he's trying to impress himself. I'm perfectly fine with him trying to impress himself and inflate his ego with his posts, he just shouldn't make a thread complaining about people not bothering to waste their time reading said posts if he insists on posting that way.

No, most people learn not make needlessly inflated posts when people keep saying it's too long and they didn't read it, so no, he doesn't remind me of anyone.

Banality and excoriate ARE "normal" words. 320 uses plenty that aren't, but you should know those two. You'd best keep reading. And it's plain ignorance.

I wouldn't say they're -that- normal. I certainly haven't heard them in a while, and I had to check banality just now as I had a vague understanding of what it meant but wasn't quite sure. I'm a big fan of reading though. I remember when I first started reading posts online as a teen, I kept a dictionary handy .