"How dare you insult me!" - "What...!?"

[crenfro]

Hello.

Some of this reminds me of that old t-shirt that had on it “those of you who think you know it all annoy those of us who do…” and that saying somewheres in the Old Testament “rebuke a wise man and he will love you…” or something like that.

Just my two cents. And please ignore this if it isn’t helpful. And sometimes I get playful.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So your implicit premise here is that calling a view simplistic is not a possible way to specify what is actually wrong with it. Do you really think that’s true? Take AngryAtheist’s view where he claims the following:
I think Betterave is very rude frankly.
But that’s okay (from my perspective) because I find him amusing.

However, one of the reasons I find him so amusing is because I have largely given up on having any sort of rational discussion with him. You cannot have any sort of meaningful debate with someone who is never willing to admit that they are wrong.

At this point I generally just point out when he is obviously wrong (such as when he is denying insulting someone he called simplistic, incapable of learning, etc.) for my own entertainment and the benefit of anyone participating in a thread.

I certainly don’t expect Betterave to concede anything.
Now it seems to me that at least one of the several things ‘wrong’ with this statement is that it is simplistic. If you compare Elizabeth502’s response, I would also have some points to criticize, but it is clearly not nearly as simplistic.

It is not meant to be particularly sophisticated Betterave, just bluntly honest regarding my opinion of you and your actions on this forum.

 

[Elizabeth502]

“So apparently you believe that I, or my points, are also ‘simplistic.’”

You said they (my points) were “simplistic.” They were not, in my view which has equal validity with your view.

So, please, without resorting to any more ad hominem fluff, can you explain your inference to an “I”-option here?

There was nothing ‘ad hominem’ in my post. I suggested that you lacked a logical thread, which you did, when you argued off-topic that I implied that rebuking someone for committing adultery was insulting them, which could not have been inferred at all from my previous comment. This is a failure to understand the process of logical argument.

Also, you just used the word “fluff,” which implies airy superficiality, which my post was not. But again, you judge yourself apparently to be superior to all the posters here (we’re all fluffy, you’re substantial ), which I’m sorry, is just insulting. You opened this thread, you asked a question, so expect some criticism, and don’t call such critcism “ad hominem” when it correctly criticizes your mode of argument and your choice of words.

since we have no way of ever checking whose beetle actually is better, that kind of discussion is utterly pointless.

It was, and is, you, who continue to refer to the intellects of others, as if you would know or could know whose was superior. I refer to the arguments themselves. Your arguments, i.m.o., are not superior, and in some respects are inferior.

Have a nice day.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502
I.m.o., it is not an insult to call an argument simplistic (a line of reasoning). However, a person should not be called “simplistic” because that, as others have said, implies intellectual inferiority, which is (yes) an insult. The problem is, in this case, the use of the word “view.” I know that sounds like parsing words, but “view” is often equated with one’s personal, subjective perspective, and is thus much more of a “personal” comment than describing an argument (a line of reasoning).

I submit simply the following: to call a person’s view simplistic is to explicitly address whatever they have said, and it is irrelevant whether what they have said expresses a personal subjective perspective or not. The same applies no more, no less to a person’s argument. If you disagree, please explain why.

Quote:
As long as the criticism does not involve the person, personality, life experience, then I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. There are some people that demand to be handled with kid gloves and are easily offended if another poster does have superior knowledge (not brains, just knowledge), and such posters will call those people “arrogant” for the “gall” of backing up a statement with an objectively superior set of facts, no matter how neutrally expressed. However,

I don’t know what you mean by implying that a criticism ought not to involve the person, personality, life experience of a person. You seem to imply that, for example, if someone has committed adultery we ought not to criticize the committing of adultery insofar as that person defends it (which seems plainly absurd).

I think it says a lot about you Betterave that you compare someone showing poor debating skills to committing a sexual ‘crime’ (adultery).

Moreover if you truly cannot understand why describing people as stupid, simplistic, unable to learn, etc. is considered insulting, then I must question your own intellectual capability.

But I don’t think you’re that sincere Betterave (or stupid).

I believe you are simply a troll who enjoys coming to this forum and venting on people who disagree with you. It doesn’t bother me when your venom is directed my way, because frankly your insults/arguments are not very sophisticated (or good), and I have developed a very thick skin over the last decade or so.

However many people who use these forums are far more sensitive than me.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

In your OP you gave examples of criticisms which, as they were framed, extended to the person, not to the person’s arguments.

That’s a clearly illogical jump, calling into question your assessment of the arguments of others and of the art of argument in itself.

And often I can tell as well. But I don’t call the person stupid, with that word or equivalent words. Also, again, in some cases the person has not been exposed to sufficient training. Sometimes it’s possible, by using some skill in how one posts, to clarify how to argue a point without talking down to the person, and thus something constructive has been done with an observation. (Rather than using the observation to deliver an insult.)

I will note that in addition, you do have a way of maintaining a superior air toward other people. I have a pretty good idea that my education and intelligence easily matches yours, but here is the way you responded to a recent reply of mine:

Why do you have to make a special point to insult someone, particularly when the insult is not warranted? So apparently you believe that I, or my points, are also “simplistic.” Does it occur to you that you may not be an objective judge of which arguments are “simplistic,” let alone whose minds are simple, in the view of other posters whose intellect may very well at least match your own?

Then you call the argument “not rational,” not the person. To call a person irrational is to imply that they are mentally and/or emotionally imbalanced. That is definitely an insult.

In short, I agree with a respected poster, here:

Betterave seems to think everyone who disagrees with him is an idiot, those who (currently) agree with him have unappreciated logic, brilliance, and learning, and that those who feel insulted by him don’t know what arguing and insulting are all about.

That is the impression he has given me anyway:shrug:

 

[Betterave]

Hello.

Some of this reminds me of that old t-shirt that had on it “those of you who think you know it all annoy those of us who do…” and that saying somewheres in the Old Testament “rebuke a wise man and he will love you…” or something like that.

Just my two cents. And please ignore this if it isn’t helpful. And sometimes I get playful.

Regardless of how helpful this turns out to be (and I do think you raise a serious point worth reflecting on), I appreciate your playfulness.

 

[Betterave]

You said they (my points) were “simplistic.” They were not, in my view which has equal validity with your view.

You’re just begging the question and ignoring the reasoning I gave.

There was nothing ‘ad hominem’ in my post. I suggested that you lacked a logical thread, which you did, when you argued off-topic that I implied that rebuking someone for committing adultery was insulting them, which could not have been inferred at all from my previous comment. This is a failure to understand the process of logical argument.

…or perhaps you just failed to understand the logic of my argument? I certainly made one, whereas I don’t think you have. (What you have written above is a substanceless insinuation, not an argument.)

Also, you just used the word “fluff,” which implies airy superficiality, which my post was not. But again, you judge yourself apparently to be superior to all the posters here (we’re all fluffy, you’re substantial ), which I’m sorry, is just insulting. You opened this thread, you asked a question, so expect some criticism, and don’t call such critcism “ad hominem” when it correctly criticizes your mode of argument and your choice of words.

You’re just flatly contradicting me and ignoring my arguments.

It was, and is, you, who continue to refer to the intellects of others, as if you would know or could know whose was superior. I refer to the arguments themselves. Your arguments, i.m.o., are not superior, and in some respects are inferior.

Elizabeth, please look at and think about what you wrote:
And often I can tell as well. But I don’t call **the person **stupid, with that word or equivalent words. Also, again, in some cases the person has not been exposed to sufficient training. Sometimes it’s possible, by using some skill in how one posts, to clarify how to argue a point without talking down to the person, and thus something constructive has been done with an observation. (Rather than using the observation to deliver an insult.)

I will note that in addition, you do have a way of maintaining a superior air toward other people. I have a pretty good idea that my education and intelligence easily matches yours, but here is the way you responded to a recent reply of mine:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betterave forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
If you compare Elizabeth502’s response, I would also have some points to criticize, but it is clearly not nearly as simplistic.

Why do you have to make a special point to insult someone, particularly when the insult is not warranted? So apparently you believe that I, or my points, are also “simplistic.” Does it occur to you that you may not be an objective judge of which arguments are “simplistic,” let alone **whose minds **are simple, in the view of other posters whose intellect may very well at least match your own?
You’re the one who is trying to make this about a comparison of intellects - which, given the way you talk about intellect, are just beetles-in-boxes, as I pointed out - instead of addressing arguments. You are trying to make this ad hominem. If you want to ally yourself with a character like AngryAtheist and make those kinds of arguments, go for it. I won’t play along.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You’re just begging the question and ignoring the reasoning I gave.

…or perhaps you just failed to understand the logic of my argument? I certainly made one, whereas I don’t think you have. (What you have written above is a substanceless insinuation, not an argument.)

You’re just flatly contradicting me and ignoring my arguments.

Elizabeth, please look at and think about what you wrote:
And often I can tell as well. But I don’t call **the person **stupid, with that word or equivalent words. Also, again, in some cases the person has not been exposed to sufficient training. Sometimes it’s possible, by using some skill in how one posts, to clarify how to argue a point without talking down to the person, and thus something constructive has been done with an observation. (Rather than using the observation to deliver an insult.)

I will note that in addition, you do have a way of maintaining a superior air toward other people. I have a pretty good idea that my education and intelligence easily matches yours, but here is the way you responded to a recent reply of mine:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betterave forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
If you compare Elizabeth502’s response, I would also have some points to criticize, but it is clearly not nearly as simplistic.

Why do you have to make a special point to insult someone, particularly when the insult is not warranted? So apparently you believe that I, or my points, are also “simplistic.” Does it occur to you that you may not be an objective judge of which arguments are “simplistic,” let alone whose minds are simple, in the view of other posters whose intellect may very well at least match your own?
You’re the one who is trying to make this about a comparison of intellects - which, given the way you talk about intellect, are just beetles-in-boxes, as I pointed out - instead of addressing arguments. You are trying to make this ad hominem. If you want to ally yourself with a character like AngryAtheist and make those kinds of arguments, go for it. I won’t play along.

That’s kind of true.
Betterave will often refuse to admit that he said something, even when specifically responding to a poster that just proved he said that very thing.

As I have said before, there’s something delightfully Campy about the way that Betterave responds to criticism

 

[Betterave]

That’s kind of true.

(I’m glad we could agree on something. I’m interested to see if Elizabeth will also notice the way in which her ad hominem ‘arguments’ imitate yours, and I’m interested to see if she’ll be as sanguine about that state of affairs as a person like yourself is able to be.)

Betterave will often refuse to admit that he said something, even when specifically responding to a poster that just proved he said that very thing.

It’s really not your MO, I know, but do you care to substantiate that charge with an example?

As I have said before, there’s something delightfully Campy about the way that Betterave responds to criticism

And as you’ll probably say again!

 

[Elizabeth502]

The only “ad hominem argument” was one in your mind, apparently, to wit that no one should challenge the assumption that your intellect is superior to that of others. That’s all I’m saying. I am challenging, first of all, that assumption, because we have only your word for that. Second, that assumption has not been demonstrated on the thread. Third, even if it were true, that supposed superiority would be irrelevant, given the very implications in your OP, namely that the issue is one of argument. Except (fourthly) the way you have argued does not demonstrate (so far) that your intellect is superior to that of other posters.

That’s not to be inflammatory, merely explaining that I cannot continue to have a conversation with someone who is determined to establish that a superior intellect is speaking and that we must all agree to that publicly before proceeding. It doesn’t seem to promote the original concerns, nor the goals of CAF in encouraging fruitful discussion on issues (as opposed to personalities, intellects, etc.).

 

[Elizabeth502]

In conclusion – personalities, intellects aside – because I don’t think any of that is relevant, and I think there will be nothing conclusive decided by continuing to argue that – the best way to show “Jo” or anyone else that an argument is “irrational,” “illogical,” etc., is not by using loaded words, even though it is tempting. Sometimes on Issues threads I use loaded words when not at all intending to apply them to a poster, a poster’s personality or “view,” etc., but rather to a concept. Yet, if the words are too loaded, the tone of those words can dominate the otherwise-healthy argument. I think that’s what some of the other posters here were trying to convey.

Intellects are not the issue. It’s both the persuasiveness of the argument and the style of the argument that carry the day. (And also often show “Jo” a better way of arguing.)

Have a nice day.

 

[Betterave]

The only “ad hominem argument” was one in your mind, apparently, to wit that no one should challenge the assumption that your intellect is superior to that of others.

There you go again! You are the only one who has brought up this beetle-in-a-box issue! Where have I made this ‘assumption’? Where has this ‘assumption’ ever formed part of my argument??

If you choose to answer this question, please be specific. Give me some substance. You’re just churning out straw man nonsense here, so far as I can see, completely fabricated (just like AA8). Making this kind of stuff up about another person is not just a rational-philosophical sin, it’s a moral sin, so please take this seriously.

That’s all I’m saying. I am challenging, first of all, that assumption, because we have only your word for that. Second, that assumption has not been demonstrated on the thread. Third, even if it were true, that supposed superiority would be irrelevant, given the very implications in your OP, namely that the issue is one of argument. Except (fourthly) the way you have argued does not demonstrate (so far) that your intellect is superior to that of other posters.

(Again, this is utter dumbfounding nonsense, since I obviously have never set out to demonstrate that my intellect is superior - I have very explicitly rejected this silly “I have a beetle-in-a-box and my beetle’s better than yours” argument. How can you completely ignore what I say like this? I truly don’t understand.)

That’s not to be inflammatory, merely explaining that I cannot continue to have a conversation with someone who is determined to establish that a superior intellect is speaking and that we must all agree to that publicly before proceeding. It doesn’t seem to promote the original concerns, nor the goals of CAF in encouraging fruitful discussion on issues (as opposed to personalities, intellects, etc.).

That is bizarre. I don’t know what else to say.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Betterave talks a lot about logic, intellectual consistency, using reason instead of emotion, etc., but I have noticed that he rarely actually employs any sort of evidence or sources to back up his claims (at least on this Forum).

However, I think in order to prove something you need evidence. So I will prove that Betterave is indeed as offensive as he denies by showing a pattern in his posts.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Here is Betterave’s first post to me in the closed Feminist ‘Philosophy’ thread. I have highlighted the insults for the readers convenience:

Feb 10, '11, 8:46 am
Betterave
Regular Member Join Date: August 4, 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,425
Religion: Catholic

Re: Feminist “Philosophy”

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Other Catholics should explain such basic theology to you. But since none of them are speaking up at the moment, the task falls to me.

I’m another Catholic, so I’ll speak up.

InSpiration has already very patiently answered your silly objection here about “basic Catholic theology.”** It is very clear you don’t know what you are talking about, and that are are uninterested or unable to take in new information and process it and respond to it rationally.** If you are simply unable, that’s unfortunate. If you have simply been uninterested up to this point, maybe you should try to get interested, at least if you wish to continue the discussion.

---

The wind blows where it wills; you hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from, or where it goes to.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And here is Betterave’s very next post in that same thread. Where he shows his social graces by calling another poster stupid:

Feb 10, '11, 9:49 am
Betterave
Regular Member Join Date: August 4, 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,425
Religion: Catholic

Re: Feminist “Philosophy”

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by inocente
I only speed-read it, but thanks, hilarious, very good ad for feminism and cause and effect. Don’t educate slaves and hey presto they won’t turn out to be so bright, proving there’s no point educating them. Continually treat homosexuals badly and hey presto they have a higher suicide rate, proving there’s something wrong with them. Isn’t it amazing there’s just enough news to fill-up the newspaper every day! A fine dead-pan satire.

**With this post I take it you’re trying to support the feminist cause by proving that there are plenty of stupid men? **

Next time you “speed-read” something, try not to make foolishly condescending comments that prove that you actually didn’t read it.

---

The wind blows where it wills; you hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from, or where it goes to.

 

[Betterave]

It’s really not your MO, I know, but do you care to substantiate that charge with an example?

AA8: So I guess your answer is no? That’s not unexpected, but you’ll have to forgive me for declining to enter into a debate with someone like yourself who regularly makes slanderous charges and completely refuses to substantiate those charges when challenged. If you want to sling arrows in philosophy (or just as a decent human being), you have to take responsibility for explaining why you did so. (Slinging more arrows does not constitute such an explanation.)

Have a nice day.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Oddly enough, Betterave later admitted to calling the poster stupid in the thread (something somewhat out of character for him) but of course that had no effect on his conduct:

Feb 11, '11, 7:36 pm
Betterave
Regular Member Join Date: August 4, 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,425
Religion: Catholic

Re: Feminist “Philosophy”

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Here is what you actually wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betterave View Post
With this post I take it you’re trying to support the feminist cause by proving that there are plenty of stupid men?

Next time you “speed-read” something, try not to make foolishly condescending comments that prove that you actually didn’t read it.

In the first sentence you call him stupid,

Unpleasant, but he deserved a little tit for tat, a little reality check. I was responding to him effectively calling Stove and, by implication, InSpiration stupid.

Quote:
and in the second sentence you accuse him of being obviously ignorant of the subject material. But there is nothing about his actual argument or claims in your post.

Just insults.

I did not accuse; I pointed out that he obviously didn’t read the article in question. If you read what he wrote then read Stove’s article, that should be perfectly obvious. And obviously this was a claim about his argument - what on Earth do you think it was about? **Ridiculous! **

---

The wind blows where it wills; you hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from, or where it goes to.

P.S. I forgot that Betterave used to be fond of saying RIDICULOUS whenever someone called him on his BS.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The only “ad hominem argument” was one in your mind, apparently, to wit that no one should challenge the assumption that your intellect is superior to that of others. That’s all I’m saying. I am challenging, first of all, that assumption, because we have only your word for that. Second, that assumption has not been demonstrated on the thread. Third, even if it were true, that supposed superiority would be irrelevant, given the very implications in your OP, namely that the issue is one of argument. Except (fourthly) the way you have argued does not demonstrate (so far) that your intellect is superior to that of other posters.

That’s not to be inflammatory, merely explaining that I cannot continue to have a conversation with someone who is determined to establish that a superior intellect is speaking and that we must all agree to that publicly before proceeding. It doesn’t seem to promote the original concerns, nor the goals of CAF in encouraging fruitful discussion on issues (as opposed to personalities, intellects, etc.).

As I have said before, I read Betterave’s posts at this point for their entertainment value, not because I think he will say anything of substance.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

There you go again! You are the only one who has brought up this beetle-in-a-box issue! Where have I made this ‘assumption’? Where has this ‘assumption’ ever formed part of my argument??

If you choose to answer this question, please be specific. Give me some substance. You’re just churning out straw man nonsense here, so far as I can see, completely fabricated (just like AA8). Making this kind of stuff up about another person is not just a rational-philosophical sin, it’s a moral sin, so please take this seriously.

.

Completely fabricated

Hardly, as the posts above make plain I am merely illustrating your pattern of behavior.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

AA8: So I guess your answer is no? That’s not unexpected, but you’ll have to forgive me for declining to enter into a debate with someone like yourself who regularly makes slanderous charges and completely refuses to substantiate those charges when challenged. If you want to sling arrows in philosophy (or just as a decent human being), you have to take responsibility for explaining why you did so. (Slinging more arrows does not constitute such an explanation.)

Have a nice day.

Oh Betterave you are an amusing creature.

I laughed out loud when I read this post.

So you want more examples, fine.