Vernon Howard

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:37 am

Leyla Shen wrote:If there's one thing worse than a cunt, it's a cunt who pretends not to be one...

.

Actually, she could just be deluded.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:45 am

MEEEEEOW!

Wow. That was awesome. I'm so turned on.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:52 am

Does that tell you anything? Like maybe you misinterpreted some stuff and need to reconsider what you're really seeing?

I agree Eliza. I think she clued into something and decided we were fighting and angry at each other, so she decided to join the fray. But there is no anger and no fray. It's like coming into a household where everyone yells at each other all the time, and thinking that everyone must hate each other.

I also think she clued into the "Genius" in the title of the forum, and using her common understanding of the word genius, decided that this forum must be filled with a bunch of arrogant assholes. I think she needs to learn what we mean by genius (why, for instance, Buddha is a genius and Einstein is not; and how there can be geniuses who never "accomplish" anything), and that among the geniuses are also people who simply want to be geniuses, or even just find the term funny and like the atmosphere of the forum.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:59 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Actually, it seems like you have just learned two new phrases: non-sequitar (which seems to be your favorite response) and ad hominem - which Trevor was able to instuct you in the proper definition of (BTW, people don't go around shortening it to "ad hom").

He was in error.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Kow - you came in here fussing about the way we interact, thinking you were seeing wrongful attacks when that's just a method we use for getting to Truth - and you turn around and start flailing wild attacks at various people. We're fine with how we're interacting with each other, but I don't see anybody who's fine with how you're attacking people. Does that tell you anything? Like maybe you misinterpreted some stuff and need to reconsider what you're really seeing?

A question was asked about the abundant use of ad-homs on this forum. The fussing came from the geniuses that gave the legless defense.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:06 am

sschaula wrote: Do you actually have the balls to stay?

You and the other geniuses can count on it. :) This place is like a kindergarten party, compared to some of the Atheism/Agnosticism forums on the www.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:15 am

kow,

He was in error.

I was going to say "prove it dipshit," but I happen to have proof that what I said was correct. Notice how each example in the following source refers to a known fact about the person's life. Notice also that they give a reason why ad hominem is a fallacy; if something does not meet those requirements (when the virtues of the person asserting the claim does affect the truth of the claim, such as when a person is making a claim about themselves) it is not ad hominem. Finally, notice that it is not ad hominem to disregard the testimony of a known liar, which makes my second example (which you fluffed off -- what was the word you used?) completely accurate.

Now, to the source:

From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ml#hominem

Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."

A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:

"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."

This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:

"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.

---

In other words, prove what you say, dipshit. I wasn't wrong. You were.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:19 am

kow,

You and the other geniuses can count on it. :) This place is like a kindergarten party, compared to some of the Atheism/Agnosticism forums on the www.

Give an example of a forum that is not a "kindergarten forum", and I will show you a forum filled with a bunch of academic blowhards who think that they know what they are talking about because they use big words and veil their insults.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:22 am

Talk about first year philosophy students! There are more than two kinds of ad-homs and not all ad-homs are fallacies, but they are always irrelevent in a debate. You guys are pathetic. We're playing by your rules, now. Do you like it? Is is stimulating you to grow on a personal level?

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:28 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:kow,
You and the other geniuses can count on it. :) This place is like a kindergarten party, compared to some of the Atheism/Agnosticism forums on the www.
Give an example of a forum that is not a "kindergarten forum", and I will show you a forum filled with a bunch of academic blowhards who think that they know what they are talking about because they use big words and veil their insults.

It actually is possible to have a debate, without resorting to the use of ad-homs. You focus exclusively on assertions. You people here; not all of you, of course, lack the maturity to do that.
Again, the above comment pertains to the few, not the (hopefully) :) many.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:33 am

Now that the discussion has gone waaay off topic....

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:37 am

kow,

Talk about first year philosophy students! There are more than two kinds of ad-homs and not all ad-homs are fallacies, but they are always irrelevent in a debate. You guys are pathetic. We're playing by your rules, now. Do you like it? Is is stimulating you to grow on a personal level?

Being able to recognize what is and is not a fallacy based on its relevancy to the argument is a much greater skill than memorizing the names of a bunch of fallacies and then thinking you understand what it is. You just learned what the fallacy is; don't try to use it until it finally sinks in, because you'll just use it incorrectly.

You sound embarassed that I proved you wrong. You are incredibly egotistical; your need to insult me in that vague manner after being disproven attests to that.

I suggest you start from the beginning, and learn some basic fundamental truths. Your foundations are weak.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:41 am

Scott,

Now that the discussion has gone waaay off topic....

It was bound to. The guy wasn't very interesting or unique. He seemed like another in a long line of "popular" gurus. I would rather teach basic philosophy to this overly hostile woman (in the hopes that she will learn the concepts correctly this time) than argue about some random guy's attempt at spirituality.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:45 am

Feel free Trevor. I'd rather stay in samadhi than have to deal with a moron like kow. You're a greater bodhisattva than I am!

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:46 am

Trevor,

Another non-sequitur, ad hominem post! You guys are too much. The simple fact is that you do not understand what an ad-hominem is and apparently are only interested in projecting your own limitations onto others and playing the oneupmanship game.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:48 am

sschaula wrote:Feel free Trevor. I'd rather stay in samadhi ..............

You wouldn't know it, if it sat on your face.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:53 am

This thread has been a good introduction to the asshole factor on this forum. You can give it, but when it's returned to you, you cry like a little girl that just had her dolly stolen. If you don't want to play nice, but instead react defensively to truth that is pointed out to you, it's going to be a long visit. :)

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:59 am

Another non-sequitur, ad hominem post!

"Overly hostile woman who doesn't know the fundamentals of philosophy" is an ad hominem? Since when? You may find it insulting, but it is incredibly relevant to a discussion with you about the fundamentals of philosophy. Hostility, feminity, and proficiency with philosophy are all relevant to a greater or lesser extent.

Your hostility makes it difficult to take you seriously, and your constant mistakes with fallacies makes it even worse. If you were to say something true at this point, it would definitely surprise me (but I would recognize the truth). Even though I have not said a single thing that is untrue, you have not overtly recognized a single truth: all you do is mock and lie.

As to it being a non-sequitur... how is that even relevant? I did not draw a conclusion that was unrelated to any premises. If you don't believe me, read through my posts and prove me wrong. Grab a couple of premises... any two will do... and find an unrelated conclusion that I tried to draw from them.

Can't do it? I wonder why? Maybe because you are pretending that you know more about the subject than you do! Very few skilled philosophers run around calling people on every fallacy. Most of the time, a skilled philosopher automatically disregards the fallacious argument, or calls it by another name. Personally, I usually call a fallacy "irrelevant bullshit", whether I remember the real name or not.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:01 am

This thread has been a good introduction to the asshole factor on this forum. You can give it, but when it's returned to you, you cry like a little girl that just had her dolly stolen. If you don't want to play nice, but instead react defensively to truth that is pointed out to you, it's going to be a long visit. :)

There's a big difference between labourously correcting someone with weak fundamentals, and crying. If you can't tell the difference, there's one more thing to add to the list of things you ought to learn.

It's awesome that you added the word "truth" to your vocabulary. You're starting to learn what we deal with here. Now all you need to learn is what truth refers to, and what, if any, relation it has to logic.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:06 am

sschaula wrote:Feel free Trevor. I'd rather stay in samadhi than have to deal with a moron like kow. You're a greater bodhisattva than I am!

Well, we tried talking with her, we tried reasoning with her, we tried returning the vollies she lobbed at us. I think we were very open minded about trying several approaches.

Maybe the kid just has to bark some more. If she says something relevant I might respond, but at the moment I think she might just be some bored kid looking to goad someone, and I have better things to do.

Trevor wrote:

Very few skilled philosophers run around calling people on every fallacy.

You give her too much credit. I think she only knows the names of two fallacies.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:10 am

Trevor,

O. K., so you don't know what non-sequitur is, either. No sweat. Do get over yourself, though, because you are full of bogus shit. Are you stimulated, yet? Growing on a personal level? Do you even understand what that phrase implies?

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:12 am

Elizabeth Isabelle,

Hopefully you realize that Leyla Shen was talking about you when she said: "If there's one thing worse than a cunt, it's a cunt who pretends not to be one..."

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:14 am

Eliza, you're right. She's just goading, and has virtually no experience with philosophy, or interest in the subject.

I'm through here. Kow is a troll.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:15 am

Trevor -

You're committing an appeal to force and emotion.

(Both are fallacies)

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:20 am

What's that fallacy called where everyone that disagrees with you, is wrong? :)

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:21 am

Steven, I have made no threats. As to your other claim, which emotion do you believe I was appealing to? Her reason?