DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

Post by Kishkumen »

Flemming wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 2:14 am
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.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

Post by Physics Guy »

What is the problem with anonymity, anyway?

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.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

Post by Moksha »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:56 am
Real names like Calm? Hmm.
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.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

Post by Kishkumen »

Physics Guy wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:45 am
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.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

Post by Kishkumen »

Moksha wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:53 am
Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 10:56 am
Real names like Calm? Hmm.
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!
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

Post by Moksha »

Flemming wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:14 am
We can’t speak in terms of things we don’t know.
Are you trying to deliver a knockout punch to Fast and Testimony meetings? "I know..." is the most common catchphrase.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7083
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

Post by canpakes »

Physics Guy wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:45 am
What is the problem with anonymity, anyway?

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.
I may just print this one out and frame it. : )
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5100
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

Post by Philo Sofee »

canpakes wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 3:58 am
Flemming wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 2:14 am
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.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

Post by Kishkumen »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:32 pm
canpakes wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 3:58 am
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.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 9099
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: DCP Takes Aim at Everybody Wang Chung

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 12:04 pm
Moksha wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:53 am
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.
Post Reply