And yes, Kishkumen, DCP could be posting anonymously without us knowing. He could also be a professional StarCraft player. Where I come from, we avoid arguments from ignorance.
Where I come from, people have the common sense to recognize that someone who has done something before very well might do it again and probably is.
In any case, when I view the MDD board, I see lots of real names, but here almost none. Hmm.
Real names like Calm? Hmm.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
People sometimes use the term "ad hominem" just to mean "insult", but argumentum ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy because it's rude. It means criticizing the person with whom you are arguing, rather than addressing what they are saying. "You say the sky is blue, but I say you're wrong because you are wearing white socks." The fallacy is the irrelevance, not the rudeness. In principle it's just as fallacious to agree with someone as to disagree with them, if you are agreeing because of who they are rather than because of what they are saying. People just don't complain about this one so much.
Discussions among anonymous internet accounts make irrelevant ad hominem remarks less likely. The less everyone knows about each other, the fewer irrelevant things about other people can be drawn into the discussion to divert attention from the real issues. Anonymity brings us closer to the Platonic ideal of intellectual debate. Complaining about people being anonymous, on the other hand, is tantamount to admitting that you want to be able to cloud the discussion with irrelevant personal details.
Do you think Smac might define his courtroom style? Some names sound fun like Tacenda or relaxing like StarGazer. Or well chosen like Juliann's moderator handle Echidna.
People sometimes use the term "ad hominem" just to mean "insult", but argumentum ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy because it's rude. It means criticizing the person with whom you are arguing, rather than addressing what they are saying. "You say the sky is blue, but I say you're wrong because you are wearing white socks." The fallacy is the irrelevance, not the rudeness. In principle it's just as fallacious to agree with someone as to disagree with them, if you are agreeing because of who they are rather than because of what they are saying. People just don't complain about this one so much.
Discussions among anonymous internet accounts make irrelevant ad hominem remarks less likely. The less everyone knows about each other, the fewer irrelevant things about other people can be drawn into the discussion to divert attention from the real issues. Anonymity brings us closer to the Platonic ideal of intellectual debate. Complaining about people being anonymous, on the other hand, is tantamount to admitting that you want to be able to cloud the discussion with irrelevant personal details.
Very well put, as usual. Insightful. And perhaps if your views are more dependent on subjective experience than demonstrable facts, you are more likely to use ad hominem arguments to let your fellow tribesmen know that your opponent isn’t part of the group and therefore most certainly wrong.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Do you think Smac might define his courtroom style? Some names sound fun like Tacenda or relaxing like StarGazer. Or well chosen like Juliann's moderator handle Echidna.
I love your sense of humor. LOVE IT!
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
People sometimes use the term "ad hominem" just to mean "insult", but argumentum ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy because it's rude. It means criticizing the person with whom you are arguing, rather than addressing what they are saying. "You say the sky is blue, but I say you're wrong because you are wearing white socks." The fallacy is the irrelevance, not the rudeness. In principle it's just as fallacious to agree with someone as to disagree with them, if you are agreeing because of who they are rather than because of what they are saying. People just don't complain about this one so much.
Discussions among anonymous internet accounts make irrelevant ad hominem remarks less likely. The less everyone knows about each other, the fewer irrelevant things about other people can be drawn into the discussion to divert attention from the real issues. Anonymity brings us closer to the Platonic ideal of intellectual debate. Complaining about people being anonymous, on the other hand, is tantamount to admitting that you want to be able to cloud the discussion with irrelevant personal details.
What other apologist do the people on this board ever talk about?
Mike Parker is a good example of an apologist discussed here recently and posting under a pseudonym. Go back a few pages and check out those threads.
Tapir’s not wrong.
We have also talked of Stephen Smoot, Brian Hales, Lou Midgley, Royal Skousen, Richard Bushman, and many of the brethren in extensive analysis and discussion through the years. John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, Michael Dennis Rhodes have also been talked of and their research also analyzed.
Mike Parker is a good example of an apologist discussed here recently and posting under a pseudonym. Go back a few pages and check out those threads.
Tapir’s not wrong.
We have also talked of Stephen Smoot, Brian Hales, Lou Midgley, Royal Skousen, Richard Bushman, and many of the brethren in extensive analysis and discussion through the years. John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, Michael Dennis Rhodes have also been talked of and their research also analyzed.
I also note that almost all of these people barely pay any attention to us. Perhaps the more people give attention to this board, the more people on this board return the favor.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Do you think Smac might define his courtroom style? Some names sound fun like Tacenda or relaxing like StarGazer. Or well chosen like Juliann's moderator handle Echidna.
I love your sense of humor. LOVE IT!
Can you explain that witticism for us folks who don’t think Moksha is funny? I really want to understand it in order to perhaps broaden my taste in obscure and unattainable comedy.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
