Annoying asshole help requested

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-03-02 06:52pm

Can't you just explain to him that your name calling need not have any effect on the content of your post? Use an example -- these people never get it unless you do. Say you were arguing with someone about whether the sky can at times be blue. You could say, "Look, I have a photo right here *provide photo*," or you could say, "Look jackass, I have a photo right here *provide photo*." It makes no difference.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2006-03-02 07:33pm

It is not an Appeal to Authority to point out that you are able to tear apart other people's fallacious arguments on the basis of their falliciousness. It's simply being intelligent. Since your ability to recognize fallacies is obviously in question, your past performance in this matter is relevant.

Sophistry requires for your arguments to actually be fallicious; since he was unable to point out an actual point in which you are fallicious (and incorrectly identified a fallacy when he does), his charge of sophistry is itself sophistry.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-03-02 08:45pm

wolveraptor said:

Can't you just explain to him that your name calling need not have any effect on the content of your post? Use an example -- these people never get it unless you do. Say you were arguing with someone about whether the sky can at times be blue. You could say, "Look, I have a photo right here *provide photo*," or you could say, "Look jackass, I have a photo right here *provide photo*." It makes no difference.

I never even really name called him anything. He's seriously stretching my words into a so called "personal attack". I suspect he's a closet martyr case trying to pretend he's the one being viciously attacked to garner some kind of sympathy. lol.

Wyrm said:

It is not an Appeal to Authority to point out that you are able to tear apart other people's fallacious arguments on the basis of their falliciousness. It's simply being intelligent. Since your ability to recognize fallacies is obviously in question, your past performance in this matter is relevant.

Sophistry requires for your arguments to actually be fallicious; since he was unable to point out an actual point in which you are fallicious (and incorrectly identified a fallacy when he does), his charge of sophistry is itself sophistry.

Thank you. I was thinking along the same lines, but it's good to have a corroborating opinion. It seems like the most deceptive pricks try to keep trying to pin their own actions on you to throw everyone off track.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-03-02 08:58pm

From his definition of personam, it doesn't even sound like a logical fallacy. Name-calling doesn't disprove or prove anything. It's irrelevent to an argument. If I simultaneously explain to you why you're wrong, and tell you you're a fucktard, me calling you a fucktard doesn't take away from the argument. If I tell you you're wrong because you're a fucktard, than that's different. Assassinating someone's character by name-calling, so long as it isn't part of your argument, isn't a logical fallacy.

Also, he's very clearly distorting your words on the bit where you told him you'd done a piece on logical fallacies. It sounds mainly like this douchebag is trying to fluster you a bit, throw a lot of fallacy names at you and only note your mistakes so that he can detract from the main point of the debate, which is about the validity of homosexuality as a lifestyle.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-03-02 09:07pm

How can you possibly be taking this shit seriously?

Tell him he WILL provide evidence of his being published or he will be dismissed out of hand as a fraud.

Tell him he WILL provide evidence that those studies he cites did not introduce bias due to their limited sample groups or they will be dismissed as the propganda lies they are.

By the way, here's a clue for you about this moron; he ridicules you for supposedly employing fallacious logic yet uses it himself repeatedly and amateurishly.
He's a published author on critical thinking? Bullshit, he's a troll not worth your time.

TheBlackCat · Post by **TheBlackCat** » 2006-03-02 09:32pm

This one is always helpful for these sorts of people: Fallacist Fallacy
Conducting an argument based solely or dispraportionately on pointing out the logical fallacies of your opponent is a logical fallact itself.

You should also point out that obituaries, especially obituaries in a selected homosexual newspapers from specific places, is not a representative sample of a population. You cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from a hopelessly skewed sample set, especially when the sample set is picked intentionally for a particular reason and thus not randomly.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-03-03 04:22am

How can you possibly be taking this shit seriously?

Tell him he WILL provide evidence of his being published or he will be dismissed out of hand as a fraud.

Tell him he WILL provide evidence that those studies he cites did not introduce bias due to their limited sample groups or they will be dismissed as the propganda lies they are.

By the way, here's a clue for you about this moron; he ridicules you for supposedly employing fallacious logic yet uses it himself repeatedly and amateurishly.
He's a published author on critical thinking? Bullshit, he's a troll not worth your time.

Lol. No Frank you misunderstood the one part. I'm the one who made the claim about being the author of a critical thinking piece. I just proved this to him when he demanded it by linking a recent article I wrote here:

http://www.gayguidetoronto.com/1_turnst ... 006&back=1

Everything else you said was right on the money. He is a deceptive little troll and he's more an idiot than I thought after his most recent posts. He ignored EVERY single one of my very specific and damning refutations to his last post and instead took two irrelevant parts of it and responded with questions. Then has the nerve to say he's going to ignore the rest for now and "talk to the grownups" as he answered a couple of other people who chimed in out of nowhere after him. His responses to them were even worse. He has now shown quite clearly he doesn't know his head from his ass when discussing the scientific method, and he only provides evidence linked to fundamentalist affiliated websites.

I told him I won't even need concessions anymore from him as he is now so clearly exposing himself as an ignorant troll, my job with him is done.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-03-03 04:30am

THEBLACKCAT SAID:

You should also point out that obituaries, especially obituaries in a selected homosexual newspapers from specific places, is not a representative sample of a population. You cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from a hopelessly skewed sample set, especially when the sample set is picked intentionally for a particular reason and thus not randomly.

Yes, other people actually called him on that and linked a very good expose of his study here:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... _obit.html

And you wouldn't BELIEVE what he responded with. lol. He said:

Yes, I’ve seen some of the criticisms of the study. Talk about childish...
I wonder why, after all this time, none of his critics have published a scientifically rigorous study of their own to refute him. (At least that I’ve ever seen.) They just sit back and take pot-shots at the best evidence available so far.

I don't need to get into how idiotic that post was.

I thought he was actually going to be fairly intelligent and give me a challenge when I started this, but it was more bullshit than brains. I don't think I'll likely need anymore help at this point. Thanks for the advice so far guys. I'm not expecting him to throw a truly clever one at me now, but I'll throw it out if he seems to.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-03-03 01:41pm

Good deal, and I'll try and read threads more thoroughly in the future, I promise. Not the first time just skimming one has bitten me on the ass....

A useful Cameron refutation for bookmarking, and hitting future morons over the head with.