Quote Lisa - Admin:Quote HeyGirl01:Quote LuvsAlex:Quote LoganH8tr:Quote invisigal4evah:Quote DawnsRainbow:Quote invisigal4evah: I finally have a minute to respond, DR!
We're in luck then...although I am a scientist (Student) at heart, but I have always loved and enjoyed a good philosophical debate very much myself. The silly innuendo, pot shots and would be sarcastic snarky barbs of some can be tedious (Not that I am complaining), but even those can be amusing when you understand the spirit behind it (IMO), lololl....IMO, when posters start baiting, attacking and implying it pretty much spells out (IMO) that they have no arguments left or very weak ones...It bemuses but still where to go with that? You cannot debate someone who refuses to debate and simply wants to lash out and ridicule! Respectfully speaking, if we are going to be honest that is how your first post in this thread came out as ridicule/ad hominem towards me and the other Anti-HO posters....KK, on to your post...let the debates begin RESPECTFULLY BUT HONESTLY as well!
A proper response to that would have been to try and prove that the act was intentional, thereby proving your first statement.
No offense but this is very similar to what is called a false dichotomy type of fallacious argument --I am again posting below the handout on fallacies in debate from the university of No Carolina for you to check for yourself the proof of my reasoning on this. In other words, I DO NOT have to choose the route that you do to debate properly (There are different modes and styles of arguing and all are valid, once they follow basic rules)....unlike you, I chose a different direction: I chose to address the attack by asking the person directly to stop baiting (By implication) as poster A's post post itself (With the definition) PROVES the ad hominem...
Point taken – ours are indeed different styles. I SHOULD have said I WISH DR would have tried to prove the act was intentional… I still wish that, because I think that would be an interesting discussion.
…there was no need to further prove my claim as the post itself with the definition did this...why post the def if the intent were not an attempt to discredit the poster RATHER than argue the point/claim? Posting the definition is proof that person B attacks that POSTER A does NOT know the definition of the word DENIAL...Reread, ad hominem fallacies and you will see that implying the poster DOES not know the definition of the word is itself attacking the poster NOT the claim! …
I disagree with your assessment that the implication was that you didn’t know the meaning of the word. I read it to mean that your allegation that Brooke is in denial is false, NOT that you didn’t know the meaning of the word.
…To attack the claim, person B would have to state their argument against the claim NOT the poster! poster B's posted definition is a claim against the POSTER itself and NOT the claim!
Again I disagree (see above)
That was a clear ad hominem i.e. bait...being a philosophy connoisseur I hope you recall that any valid argument involves the following (As shown in the quote below from the UNC educational handout):
A valid argument is composed of PREMISES, supporting evidence/examples to support that premise and a conclusion to bring it all together! Person B's post had NO premise, no examples, no corroborating evidence and NO conclusion; therefore NO argument was presented! All that was offered was a mechanical copy & paste action challenging poster A's knowledge of words by its very posting. That in no way constitutes an argument in any discipline studied!
Agreed! But then the nature of an online forum removes most, if not all proper criteria for discussion, including grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax, and, as you pointed out, introduction, arguments for and against and even the conclusion! (We NEVER seem to get there!)
A valid argument: "Each argument you make is composed of premises (this is a term for statements that express your reasons or evidence) that are arranged in the right way to support your conclusion (the main claim or interpretation you are offering). You can make your arguments stronger by"
As you write in your last sentence (I agree), "we need to respect each others' differences;" therefore to honor your own comment means respecting other styles of debate --including those dissimilar to your own! Based on your own comment on respecting other posters, my RESPONSE is a proper response for me and your response is a proper response for you --neither usurps the other in importance, it is simply our unique style of debate....the definition of a word alone and advancing no argument at all ? That has never been an accepted proper response in any respectful argument....
Agreed again. As I stated earlier, I should not have said “proper”. I should have said I WISH. I apologize.
You wrote in your post to TIMTAM "I wish that DR would have discussed the point more," to which I asked you do you ALSO wish, poster B had done the same and addressed the post topic rather than attack the poster A (More accurately attack the OP's intelligence/knowledge of the word rather than attacking the claim itself) = ad hominem, also equals BAIT.
Again, we see this differently.
By your own admission, you wrote posting the definition is a "subtle" ad hominem, without a counter to say poster A DOES NOT know the definition (BUT person B purports to herself be the one who knows the definition as she posts it???? That is classic ad hominem and fallacious in debate as the handout shows). What kind of argument allows for one POSTER to bolster their own point in a debate by claiming that they alone know the definition of words BUT others do NOT?? Lololllllllllllll
To explain my view, I saw the definition of the word “denial” as a subtle ad hominem , meaning that I saw it as “Brooke is not in denial, and here is the official definition to prove my point! You are wrong.” I did not read it to say “Since you don’t know the definition of the word, I will post it.” The first would be an argument against your view, although not completely worded, and the second would be an attack on you.
That goes towards correcting (And against board rules)... (IMO) as there would be no other reason to post the definition from a dictionary unless you are ACCUSING ignorance of the word from poster A....in fact, to be accurate as the challenger it is person B herself who should have debated the point after posting the definition of DENIAL and followed through with, based on definition 1, 2, 3, 4 of DENIAL HO-INC was NOT in denial (IMO) because blah blah...how to counter ANY argument by simply copying & pasting a dictionary definition from a website? That is not very hard to do....I could start copying and pasting all kinds of words without saying a thing --how is that NOT a bait? lolollllll
Again, I did not see this as a bait, simply an argument on your point.
Person B disagreed and can't get inside HO-INC's head to prove or disprove DENIAL does NOTt apply to HO-INC --an opinion must be debated...the poster could hope to do is bring up explanations and/or examples to prove that based on wiki (lololll) definition, HO-INC was NOT in a denial (IMO)....it would still ONLY be that person's opinion NOT fact since her opinion is NOT superior to mine --still opinions can be argued NOT usurped based on A thinking they alone has the last word on what DENIAL is!
Right – however, I think you may have read too much into that post, with all due respect.
Posting the definition of words is deriding and baiting....Still I gave the benefit of the doubt and asked if this was a bait to be polite)...Had it been unintentional B would have explained that then explained their claim rather than the next post saying, she does NOT want to discuss it because posters (Like me, I guess, lololll) DO NOT want to accept the truth? lololll What truth, when speaking about opinions on motives of fake characters? lololll Our posting styles and debate styles may be different BUT philosophy is philosophy and logical debate is logical debate! Had there been no argumentative bait, the poster would have posted a definition and explained why and posted the counter argument...they could have said "I disagree with your use of the word for HO-INC because (IMO) blah blah etc," That point cannot be denied so it seems to me that actually B is the one you should feel should have ARGUED the point of the original post RATHER than attack the post or poster!
And again I agree that the better thing to do would have been to stick around and debate the point. But – and again with all due respect, I think you have a tendency to “pile on” when somebody disagrees. It takes the fun out of actual fair debate when three or four other posters leap in to add their unwanted high fives. Honestly, I don’t like to see that from either side, because I think it diminishes all of us when we start acting like that.
TIMTAM understood perfectly and you admitted it...person A (DR) posts a claim AGAINST HO-INC (Fictional character) = No foul, no problem. Enters person B posts DEFINITION from dictionary of words used in post by person A WITHOUT any FORM of debate offered (In order for respectful debate a COUNTER claim MUST be made which was NOT by your own admission in another post?)--no debate offered just ridicule....the argument was NOT offered against the ARGUMENT BUT against the POSTER i.e. the poster does NOT know what DENIAL means therefore HO-INC was NOT in denial! Lololl
Yes, TIMTAM did state correctly the point on the fictitious “Poster A, Poster B” post, but that post and the “denial” post are two different examples.
That was the gyst of their post!
Person A (DR) countered the BAIT (It is a bait because it is a personal attack against the poster and NOT against the claim itself) by asking person B if 1. they were baiting(Which I knew they were), B has done this on other threads started by other Anti-HOS. 2. I asked if if they were NOT baiting to please post the point of their debate with a counter argument as I know the definition of the words DENIAL and would prefer to stick to debating the characters NOT me having to prove that I know the definition of basic words like DENIAL, lololllllll
Again, I think it is difficult to post a counter point when one person is trying to answer four or five different people. Not only is it not proper debating style, but you have some friends who live to antagonize. I’m not saying this in a disparaging way. But the truth is the truth.
I asked person B to please debate the issue with an argument to discuss, person B replies by saying they are NOT baiting BUT honestly people refuse to listen to the truth and she does NOT want to discuss the subject? WHAT??????? (Speaking of proper responses, is that a proper response from someone NOT baiting),lololll
Again, I disagree. “People refuse to listen to the truth”. Truth is a very subjective thing. You say potato, I say potahto. And as I noted earlier, it’s very difficult to make a point when five people are jumping all over you.
If B did not want to discuss further and implies topic is beneath herm why post --if not to bait?
Nope. Self preservation. It’s not baiting IMO, it’s refusing to fight with a group.
On another note, since when is there a truth when discussing subconscious motives of characters or even real people unless we're in their heads...
Exactly! That’s my opinion also! Your perception is just as valid as mine!
Second point: on your comment saying "I wist that DR would have debated that point instead of seeing it as an attack"? I am confused that you would say this now given that the words "long winded," were other "ad hominem" attacks being thrown around liberally at the time...you yourself used the ad hominem in replying to me sarcastically by writing "I would quote your post in replying but the internet would run out of space" lololllllllllllllllllllllllll Hence, I am a bit confused that you would say you wished I had debated the point further when you previously stated that my posts were too long....debating properly takes some writing as in presenting examples, using many words and sentences; therefore good debate usually takes some space so....
Again, DR, I feel you are entirely too sensitive. I said that because we are BOTH long-winded, and I thought it was rather humorous. I’m sorry if you felt attacked, I meant it as a self-effacing statement. I actually thought you would appreciate the humor.
The irony of ad hominems are what made them funny, they say more than we realize i.e. they say (IMO) that we are afraid of the debate so we attack people, writing styles, length of posts, spelling on improper forums such as message boards....arguments are intertwined in debates where one thought invariably accumulates on previous points! Had she just let it go, it could be seen as an accident BUT she kept returning over and over again just to post OT, argue against the poster, BAIT some more then finally B bashed me outright by calling me a LIAR! I never disrespected B throughout all that except to ask her to stop baiting! if that was NOT baiting, I don't know what is!! lololllllllll
Oh oh! I believe this is baiting! “we are afraid of the debate so we attack people, writing styles, length of posts, spelling”
You actually asked of me what you did did not provide in your own posts....you say to TIMTAM "I WISH that DR had debated the point" yet you were not faithful to your own standard when you came on the thread by posting your sarcastic post....this goes towards "Do as I say NOT as I do" mentality which people usually judge others by....what you ask is NOT my mode of debate but you yourself failed to adhere to your own mode of debate and live up to what you ask of others which is debate the point originally instead of the sarcastic post, lololll I am not trying to be mean BUT simply pointing out the valid points as you now ask! I did not know what you wanted before BUT I do now as you stated so debating the points!
No, I’m sorry, wrong again. I posted the sarcastic post before TIMTAM and I had our nice conversation. Previous to our conversation, I was behaving in a manner to suit the board. Attack, attack, attack. So any post previous to our discussion, in fairness, should not be considered in our conversation.
You say you wish I had NOT seen it as an attack....I had to see it for what it was (The blatant way it was intended could not be ignored) which was indeed an attack...actually, on keeping with respect to debate, I asked if she was BAITING so your claim is NOT entirely factual....I asked if it was an attack and pointed out the fallacious type of argumnet that I knew the definition of the word. I explained my claim and gave reasons, person B and person C did not--not until now!
Disagree again! But we’ve talked about it earlier.
I am only trying to help!
"I think we can all coexist peacefully if we show a little respect"
Yes that goes both ways and I agree that we can all coexist peacefully if we show a little respect -- I did not feel any respect from your post ridiculing Anti-HO debate style earlier or posting the definition of an obvious word like "DENIAL" to me, lolollll. It goes both ways!
You are absolutely right! There was no respect shown! But I hope with our exchange here, things can settle down and we can agree to disagree. I know that it’s difficult to speak for everyone, especially a bunch of people you really don’t know, but my greatest hope is that both “sides” learn to respect each other!
IMO, the poster was absolutely addressing the claim of "denial" by posting the definition of the word. It's the use of denying the opposite point of view. I didn't read anything insulting or condescending, rather a disagreement over the term "denial". I feel it was a point of discussion, much more so than any personal attack. .
Really? lolollll. I am confused did you NOT just admit in your post to TIMTAM that B's post was a subtle ad hominem and not addressing the claim? Are you going back on that admission? If yes, then your claim would now be that B was addressing the topic of my post by posting the definition of a very common word TO ME (lolollll) --that I myself used in my own post?? lololll. How is the poster addressing the point by attacking me and posting no counter argument? WHY would I need the definition of the word DENIAL or any word I myself used in my post POSTED TO ME --unless the claim is that I am NOT familiar with the words that I use? How can anyone address the claim absolutely without a counter argument? lolollll KK, please explain how? What exactly is B's counter argument in copying and pasting the definition of a word that I used in my post to me since it is clear that I know what DENIAL means since I posted it --unless the assertion is I do NOT know what the word means or that copy & past is hard to do....you told TIMTAM that you are familiar with valid arguments, so (I may be missing something), please explain how posting the definition of a common word by itself equal an argument? I could go to any thread right now on any subject and go to dictionary.com then come back and post the definition of a few random words too, so what exactly would this counter argument be? lololllllllll EXAMPLE: I could go to dictionary.com right now and post the definition of the words you use in your posts, what would it prove? I don't know, maybe I wanted to show off my copy & pasting skills perhaps? lololllllll How would this qualify as any form of counter argument to copy & paste the definition of a randon word, it is mechanical and (No offense intended) but the action involves very minor thought process to just copy & paste! (IMO), no offense BUT standards are low indeed and Pickings are slim for sure, if copy & pasting passes for any form of debate nowadays, lololll
These issues were addressed earlier.
B did NOT address the claim OF DENIAL (As there was no counter-argument)? Per your own admission in your second post to me, YOU NEED a counter argument to have a debate? That is what was missing, B had NO counter argument, only posted an attack against the poster!
What if posters went around posting the definition of the word "definition" to you, what would that say? lolollll It would be a bash against you implying that you do NOT know what DEFINITION means...the claim is clear and there is NO going around it...posting the definition alone without any counter means B is charging that poster A did NOT know what the word means! Lololllllllllll
Again, these issues have been addressed. I’m sorry it took me so long to reply, but I’ve been so busy this week, that soap opera drama is the last thing on my to-do list! I look forward to posting with you, DR, and appreciate our differences!
I appreciate you taking a very short second to reply BUT if I may say, your reply is very unclear because it is nested within my post as one. If you had bolded your reply it would have helped. I truly WISH that you had!
1. I saw where you agreed that we have to respect each other's styles of posting BUT say you should have said that you wished I had said that. We are in agreement here as I feel the same about the difficulty in pointing out your reply. Like you, I wish that you had constructed this post differently...maybe that was the point so long story short, we can BOTH wish BUT it is what it is and we have to work with what we have, right? lololll How does the expression go: If wishes were horses, everyone would ride! We can wish all we want BUT people have to follow their styles NOT yours or mine....that is still disrespectful to say in a respectful debate what YOU WISH the other person should say --so long as basic rules of debate are followed such as posting an ACTUAL ARGUMENT with supporting reasons of course and respectfully as you say!
You write that you disagree with my claim that posting the definition implies that I do NOT know the meaning so what was the point of posting the definition? Please answer As you learned in philosophy an argument must have a premise, supporting reasons, and a conclusion...copy & pasting DOES NOT satisfy any part of an argument...a toddler could copy & paste (without thinking) in their sleep...please REPLY to the question? Why copy & paste definition of words in the post without an argument? What is the argument then? Again I ask because saying it addressed the argument DOES NOT (NOOO) answer the question at all! Please explain how it addressed the argument and what the counter claim was and how copy & pasting addresses this point without an argument stated
Again, posting the definition of words DO NOT qualify as arguments in debate...I have posted proof, where is your proof or professor that agrees that copying and posting the definition of words is acceptable as an argument? Until you show such proof from a reputable source on this new accepted form of debate, ~) the implication is clear that I do NOT know what the word means it is that simple!
No offense, BUT You just made an ad hominem attack against me (The temptation to respect is too great apparently, lololll) by writing the uncorroborated INSULT that I have a tendency to "pile on" when others disagree which is exactly what you are doing now by saying that without supporting it with proof....I am giving you proof of "piling on" just by accusing without giving a reason...please provide examples of me "piling on" in a respectful debate and you win...Otherwise, your point was an attempt but unsuccessful by its own attempt! It is very easy to project and attack others without proof, IMO, it just proves the debater again has NO valid argument...I would have hoped there could have been some self-restraint exercised even here but alas, I guess no cigar, lololll...It may seem to be on BOTH sides to you BUT there was NO attack on the board simple polite request from me to person B to offer an argument and constant baiting by B and uncalled sarcasm from you mocking my posting styles...there was NO such attack from my side to anyone..the post are still here as proof! I back up my reasoning for what I say UNLIKE many others :)) !
Yes, TIMTAM did state correctly that A's post was a subtle ad hominem with which you agree...so what are you proposing NOW that you changed your mind....TIMTAM's post was addressing B's post to me (A) and you agreed that it was an ad hominem...that is where your reply about preferring that DR had addressed the pint came in...you appear to be going back and forth on whether you agree it was an ad hominem or NOT, lololll which is it, do you still stand by your admission to TIMTAM? If not how has your position changed and which posts were you addressing? I hope you are not confused on this? What were you discussing and what was B's argument and what is the point of copy & pasting,I ask again, lolollll?
I see you say a soap opera drama is the last thing on your to do list (IMO, that is too much (unnecessary) info as they say....I did NOT demand that you post sooner so no excuses needed; in addition you seemed to find time alright to post the sarcastic comments before, lololll
It is all good, I do think that we understand each other however and it will be nice posting with you again!
Thank you and I await your answers...you wrote several times (In your post), addressed this question earlier BUT in truth NO CLEAR answer has been given to any of my questions! It almost reminds me of a political debate where no clear answer is given to questions but the candidate keeps claiming to have ADDRESSED it earlier while skirting the issues on all questions....no offense intended, but politics might hold a place for you yet (IMO)! lololll
1. How did copy & pasting address the claim?
2. Please show the argument of copy & paste? What does it say?
3. What was the claim of copy & pasting?
4. When did I "Pile on, " as you say and show examples of this or some proof?
5. What intellectual debating skill does mechanical copy & pasting address?
6. What type of argument is copy & pasting (What is the debater claiming)? Show premises, examples and conclusions!
(I ask again because this question is still never answered)
Whenever you have time with your very busy schedule, I will look forward to your reply.
Well, I thought I had explained all of these points clearly. I most definitely did not intend to offend you with any statement, I was simply being as honest as I could. I'm genuinely sorry you've decided to throw in those poorly disguised insults,though, I really am. I assume your "busy schedule" comments are an attack on me? You're telling me I'm not busy, that I'm simply bowled over by the enormity of the task at hand? Is that it? I posted that quick comment out of respect earlier in the week, no hidden meaning was lurking beneath the surface.
As I mentioned in my reply, I think you may be a little over sensitive. I still think that. As far as the "piling on" statement - it's insulting to both of us when somebody with chocolate all over his face looks you in the eye and says "what candy?" Playing innocent is so beneath adults.
Again, all your questions are answered in my first post. I hope you take the time to read it.
If you can't admit defeat and just bow out honorably then at least don't insult Dawn. What you are doing is disrespectful to her and this board.
You should reevaluate what you are doing b/c personal attacks are a no no in case you weren't aware.
I didn't need all these words to know that only posting the definition of denial was an insult.All that was needed was an apology if the insult wasn't intended.
Loganh8ter and LuvsAlex, are you two moderaters on this board? If you are, I get why it seems like you two are into telling others how they should post.
No they aren't. I am the admin here, but a lot of posters here like to let newbies (and others) know about the guidelines so they may prevent themselves from getting a ban. HTH :)
Soaps.com Forum Admin
Thank you for the clarification, Lisa and for your time on addressing the inappropriate posts!
We appreciate your time! :)