Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
So you were hardly ignoring me then.
Hey Frank, perhaps Dasiym is reading one of your post right now.
Or perhaps not.
|
At the time your posts were addictive but I had to send a message!
Quote:
|
Why'd you consider putting me on ignore, if you were to continue reading my posts whilst logged off?
|
See above!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
You are half right, you have on occasion warranted the label "intellectual coward", it was not for the reasons you've given.
You're perfectly entitled to dispel or ignore fallacical arguments, which despite your incessant claims, mine rarely are. You're not however entitled to claim a monopoly on truth via a tabloid SMH article, whilst ignoring all reality or meaningful debate to the contrary by resorting to falsely labeling almost every counter-argument a red herring or a logical fallacy, even in its full Latin glory, when this has so obviously not been the case.
|
What Mike Duffy stated was factually correct whether he wrote it on a blog, this forum or SMH. The refugee debate? I actually did not argue that the treaty did not permit nation jumping. In fact I dismissed that one as a red herring because I agreed with you. Maybe if I just said that I could have saved a big mess.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Consider, we have continued debating with you despite
your argumentum ad verecundiam arguments concerning dickhead Andrew Fraser's views on the Sudanese,
|
I would challenge this since Fraser quoted experts in the very fields of psychology (Rushton) which includes crime and IQ. 'Argumentum ad verecundium' is not always a fallacy if a qualified third source is quoted in one's argument. Of course this debated in itself but it is a defence. Now where I am wrong is I may not accept this defence if an opponent used it because it is debated. Now that is not fair.
Now where one may get Fraser on a long shot is on the 'Appeal to Authority' because his sources are disputed thought the IQ scores or not which is the long shot problem but my interest in Fraser is his being able to present a non-violent view without sanction.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
your argumentum ad ignorantiam points regarding SMH's resident tabloid Duffy's claims about the Uni's treatment of Fraser,
|
His claims were correct because they were factually true from what I could tell not because you could not prove them wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
your argumentum ad antiquitatem claims that the Anzacs never fought for a multicultural Australia,
|
I was appealing to 'tradition?' I was merely commenting on historical facts. I did not argue that something was necessarily correct because it was fought for in history. I leave that up to the person reading the article.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
your argumentum ad hominems about my living in Japan and its
relevence to public spending,
|
Even though this is true...
1) I did not dismiss any credible arguments based on this...
2) You introduced an opinion on why you felt Australians should pay for the upkeep of refugees Jerry.
Once that debate turned into an exchange of opinions and moral positions, I felt no need to avoid introducing such a point.
However, you are correct! I do resort to attacks myself! Hell I just told Patrick that he is a nutcase! Hmmmm....I suppose I should change my ways of debating! Maybe time for a new way of thinking. I cannot jump on others for ad hominem if I call other posters nutcases. Seriously effects the credibility!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
My personal favourite, your slippery slope claims that current immigration and birth patterns will see white Aussies becoming a minority in 150 years, and finally
|
I believe the term is forecasting based on a pattern? A slippery slope means an inevitable event must follow from another; I admit this pattern can be changed. Maybe forecasting is not etched in stone but it can be an effective tool when deteriming the results of certain pattern trends.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
your ad nauseum attacks of improperly claiming red herring or a logical fallacy of some sort from all who have challenged you to consider your insulated, secular world view.
|
On second thought maybe I should have engaged you more then I did on those things instead of going in circles. If I agreed with a point that i did not contend I could have shortened these battles considerably.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
All this whilst ignoring the intellectual giant fonts the in the conventions we agreed to.
|
I agreed to 'conventions?' My memory must be failing me?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Nobody can stop you from continuing to do so, you're a free man, but pardon me if I feel it more to my liking to simply have some fun at your expense than continue to enter fruitless debate where the wheels are spinning, but the car is still on the hoist.
|
Maybe you have a point. Maybe my code of fallacy is so complex and even self-serving at times that I should disregard it and merely debate the issues as the rubes do!?
My above defences are reasonable for my use of those things but would I allow those defences for others? I do not know so maybe it is time to change the MO!
Yes, lets do that! No more fallacy crap and no more belittling others unless they deserve it. Maybe you could make this offer to Daisym for me by PM? I admit I do miss testing my arguments in battle against her, she is a worthy opponent.
I will change my entire system...maybe you two have a point. However, I reserve the right to insult Patrick or any other troll at will!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
And lastly, sincere apologies for thinking you were trolling as the good Rev, it just seemed to weird that he is a rahowa retard, signed up the day I first bailed on you in the earth-to-kruger thread, and seems to be just here pushing buttons, contributing nothing whatsoever to the debate. Believe me when I say that despite our many differences I hold you in a much higher light.
|
That actually bothered me because I like to think I am somewhat bright and putting me in that idiots category did offend me. This guy could not form a thought if they implanted Einsteins brain into his head.