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

[AngryAtheist8]

The example Betterave requested is also conveniently located in the Feminist ‘Philosophy’ thread. Look on the date of the post and see how he initially denied the insult he later admitted to:

**Feb 10, '11, 5:01 pm **
AngryAtheist8
Regular Member Join Date: October 7, 2010
Posts: 1,441
Religion: Agnostic

Re: Feminist “Philosophy”

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betterave
Dude: I pointed out that inocente made false claims which he should have known were baseless and quite probably false, since he obviously didn’t read the article he so condescendingly criticized. **Your pretending that my pointing this out is nothing but a personal attack is reee-diculous! **

Here is what you actually wrote:

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, 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.

 

[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.

No Betterave, me calling someone I didn’t know a slavetrading, tax-cheating, amoral thief would be slander. Calling you a troll is just stating the obvious.

The truth is I could fill this thread with pages of examples of you insulting people on this board and then denying it. Saying that they were overly-sensitive or misunderstood your words.

 

[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.

I think you won’t enter into a debate with me because I’m one of the few people on this board who calls you on your BS and mocks you when you attempt to make a witty comment/insult.

 

[Betterave]

Oh Betterave you are an amusing creature.

I laughed out loud when I read this post.

So you want more examples, fine.

LOL! Apparently you forgot to read the following: “(Slinging more arrows does not constitute such an explanation.)”

And you seem to have ‘forgotten’ (intentionally disregarded?) what it was my comments referred to. To remind you: “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.” You can’t very well give ‘more’ examples of this, since you haven’t yet given any. Do you see how that works? (See red herring - nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html.)

 

[Betterave]

I think you won’t enter into a debate with me because I’m one of the few people on this board who calls you on your BS and mocks you when you attempt to make a witty comment/insult.

Wow! You really are angry aren’t you? I’m sorry if you can’t appreciate it, but I really do feel sorry for you.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

LOL! Apparently you forgot to read the following: “(Slinging more arrows does not constitute such an explanation.)”

And you seem to have ‘forgotten’ (intentionally disregarded?) what it was my comments referred to. To remind you: “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.” You can’t very well give ‘more’ examples of this, since you haven’t yet given any. Do you see how that works? (See red herring - nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html.)

Check out the most recent re-post from Feminist Philosophy my dear troll.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Wow! You really are angry aren’t you? I’m sorry if you can’t appreciate it, but I really do feel sorry for you.

Considering how often you have insulted me B, I can’t consider you anything but insincere.

 

[Betterave]

Check out the most recent re-post from Feminist Philosophy my dear troll.

LOL! Check out the “red herring” link, Grumpy.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Here’s another example of Betterave insulting someone and then denying it. Since B will no doubt deny that he denied it (thus eventually creating an infinite loop) this example is more for you dear lurkers than him:

Feb 11, '11, 7:22 pm
Betterave
Regular Member Join Date: August 4, 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,429
Religion: Catholic

Re: Feminist “Philosophy”

---

Here is your first post in this thread:

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

 

[Betterave]

Considering how often you have insulted me B, I can’t consider you anything but insincere.

I’d like to be able to prove my sincerity, but how can I? You are impossible to reason with, and your anger, no doubt, exacerbates the problem. I will humbly suggest that you need to recognize that it is yours, you need to own your anger, take responsibility for it, and take responsibility for your very faulty reasoning. I can’t do that for you.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Here’s a bit of context, Stove’s thesis is that women are intellectually inferior. So when Betterave said the person he was replying to proved Stove’s thesis…

Moreover he does it in the very sentence where he scolds others for name calling:

Feb 11, '11, 7:50 pm
Betterave
Regular Member Join Date: August 4, 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,429
Religion: Catholic

Re: Feminist “Philosophy”

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by inocente
Stove’s article is delightful lunacy, simplistic inanity, bigoted buffoonery, with lines like: Child-bearing is so extremely obvious an impediment to intellectual performance…

Maybe your comments are delightful lunacy, simplistic inanity, bigoted buffoonery? Where’s the substance? (Name-calling isn’t substance; your resorting to scandalized name-calling precisely confirms Stove’s thesis, whether you notice it or not.)

Quote:
Stove called his essay The Intellectual Capacity of Women, and Jenny Teichman wrote a diplomatic reply which she called The Intellectual Capacity of David Stove:

David Stove’s essay “The intellectual capacity of women” was first published in 1990, in the Proceedings of a Sydney philosophical society. It has been re-published twice since his death. It seems though that during his lifetime Stove himself refused to agree to its being re-printed. This raises two questions: Did Stove believe his essay on women contains mistakes? And: does it contain mistakes?

The main flaws in the essay stem from a rash adoption of simplistic ideas about probability coupled with a question-begging definition of capacity. The work also contains contradictions and exaggerations and some unwise forays into social history. Stove was an intelligent man so it seems likely that he would have recognised those flaws. - journals.cambridge.org/action…line&aid=64567

Yes, nice abstract. I’m guessing you didn’t read that article either?

Quote:
Teichman is female of course so I guess we should also discount her claims, along the lines of asking where does the dear lady get it into her pretty little head that she can think when everyone knows women should be seen and not heard. Yikes dude.

You’ve again proven that you didn’t read Stove’s article and that you are content to attack a silly straw man caricature instead of the real argument being offered. (Maybe that’s all you’re capable of? I don’t know, dude.)

---

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

 

[Elizabeth502]

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??

Assumptions are evident in word choice, in tone. Several other posters have pointed this out quite well, in several much earlier posts on this thread. Posts 72 and 77 come to mind, as well, of course, as post 91, in which you used the word “nonsense” three times, without explaining why it would be nonsensical to use tone as an indicator of intent.

You dismiss the comments of other posters as “silly,” and now even accusing one of us of sinning (against You? ).

Look, as I said earlier, it’s easy to get carried away in the heat of debate, and when one is passiionate about an issue it is difficult not to do that, at times. There are some people who seem to be phlegmatic and immune to “reactivity,” but I think they’re the exception, as they are less interested in debate to begin with. But when tone dominates, then the message tends to be received as emotional rather than intellectual, and personal as opposed to conceptual. The more someone wants to persuade intellectually, the less personal and incendiary should be the tone of the argument. For example, earlier on this very thread you stated your points, and/or isolated words, in capital letters. That also conveys a tone. Based only on this thread, I think your tone is dominating, and apparently I am not alone in that observation.

Sometimes it’s best for me to step back before I post something and reread it calmly after a pause, even though I have to log in again. In addition, it’s sometimes good if I imagine how another respected poster might frame a reply, and use him or her as a role model for me to edit my own reply.

I’ve actually had at least 4 or 5 different posters PM me or email me about an intended Reply they wanted to post, to ask for my opinion as to its tone. I think that’s a good idea to get an Accountability Partner. (Not that it’s “a good idea” that they used me in particular, LOL, but rather that some of us would do well to locate an AP for that, on occasion.) That’s why I say I sometimes do that invisibly, so to speak: imagining how poster so-and-so would handle a Reply that I am poised to make, because I do need that myself.

Hope that clarifies…

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’d like to be able to prove my sincerity, but how can I? You are impossible to reason with, and your anger, no doubt, exacerbates the problem. I will humbly suggest that you need to recognize that it is yours, you need to own your anger, take responsibility for it, and take responsibility for your very faulty reasoning. I can’t do that for you.

I suppose a good way to demonstrate sincerity would be to stop insulting me (and every other person who disagrees with you) in virtually every post you write

I mean really man, 2 insults in a (supposedly) peace making gesture:shrug:

 

[Betterave]

Assumptions are evident in word choice, in tone. Several other posters have pointed this out quite well, in several much earlier posts on this thread. Posts 72 and 77 come to mind, as well, of course, as post 91, in which you used the word “nonsense” three times, without explaining why it would be nonsensical to use tone as an indicator of intent.

Okay, so is this you offering specific substance? I checked post 72 and it is very clearly nonsense to claim either (a) that post 72 is based on an assumption of my ‘intellectual superiority’ or (b) that use of the word ‘nonsense’ constitutes an assumption of my intellectual superiority (as opposed to a quite possibly fair comment on a nonsensical comment).

You dismiss the comments of other posters as “silly,” and now even accusing one of us of sinning (against You? ).

Is that an issue you take lightly? That’s unfortunate. And hypocritical.

Look, as I said earlier, it’s easy to get carried away in the heat of debate, and when one is passiionate about an issue it is difficult not to do that, at times. There are some people who seem to be phlegmatic and immune to “reactivity,” but I think they’re the exception, as they are less interested in debate to begin with. But when tone dominates, then the message tends to be received as emotional rather than intellectual, and personal as opposed to conceptual. The more someone wants to persuade intellectually, the less personal and incendiary should be the tone of the argument. For example, earlier on this very thread you stated your points, and/or isolated words, in capital letters. That also conveys a tone. Based only on this thread, I think your tone is dominating, and apparently I am not alone in that observation.

Sure, but strongly analytical, logically rigorous arguments are the kind of arguments I use and such arguments are intrinsically ‘dominating.’ Is it fair to fault me for using such arguments?

Sometimes it’s best for me to step back before I post something and reread it calmly after a pause, even though I have to log in again. In addition, it’s sometimes good if I imagine how another respected poster might frame a reply, and use him or her as a role model for me to edit my own reply.

That sounds like a good idea. I hope you can do that consistently. One question you might ask yourself when doing this is: Am I actually responding to what my interlocutor has written: the actual text, the words, the propositions, the way they are framed as an argument? Or am I just projecting my own view and insisting on it no matter what my interlocutor says? If you’re not sure, or if he has to repeatedly tell you that you’re getting it wrong, you can try to put his argument in your own words and say “so you argument in post such-and-such is …(fill in the blank)?”

 

[Betterave]

I suppose a good way to demonstrate sincerity would be to stop insulting me (and every other person who disagrees with you) in virtually every post you write

I mean really man, 2 insults in a (supposedly) peace making gesture:shrug:

Let us reason together:

I claim: “Your reasoning is very faulty.”
You get angry (angrier) and claim I am insulting you.
I would be happy to reason with you and explain the faultiness of your reasoning (I actually do this professionally).
But you have no interest in that because you all you see is tainted by your anger.
Your anger further contributes to the faultiness of your reasoning, so you’re trapped in a vicious circle.
And thus you are impossible to reason with.

That’s why I humbly suggest that you need to be the one to take responsibility for your anger. (You can choose to disbelieve me, perhaps, - and you can also attempt to mock me and ignore the content of what I have said, as you usually do - but I am being perfectly sincere in saying this.)

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Okay, so is this you offering specific substance? I checked post 72 and it is very clearly nonsense to claim either (a) that post 72 is based on an assumption of my ‘intellectual superiority’ or (b) that use of the word ‘nonsense’ constitutes an assumption of my intellectual superiority (as opposed to a quite possibly fair comment on a nonsensical comment).

Is that an issue you take lightly? That’s unfortunate. And hypocritical.

Sure, but strongly analytical, logically rigorous arguments are the kind of arguments I use and such arguments are intrinsically ‘dominating.’ Is it fair to fault me for using such arguments?

Except you generally don’t use such debating tactics Betterave.
At least not on this forum.

You favor personal attacks (insults) against those that disagree with you. This very post is evidence of that. Rather than address Elizabeth’s point (the substance of her argument) you dismiss her by accusing her of taking sin lightly and being a hypocrite.

 

[Betterave]

Rather than address Elizabeth’s point (the substance of her argument) you dismiss her by accusing her of taking sin lightly and being a hypocrite.

Okay, so you claim. I completely disagree.

Now, *if *you are interested in a rational discussion, you need to be prepared to tell me what you think Elizabeth’s point, the substance of her argument was, such that I failed to address it. Can you do that?

[FYI: what I just wrote is a ‘strongly analytical, logically rigorous’ approach to your objection. If you choose not to play that way, I can’t do much about it.]

 

[Elizabeth502]

Okay, so is this you offering specific substance? I checked post 72 and it is very clearly nonsense to claim either (a) that post 72 is based on an assumption of my ‘intellectual superiority’ or (b) that use of the word ‘nonsense’ constitutes an assumption of my intellectual superiority (as opposed to a quite possibly fair comment on a nonsensical comment).

Is that an issue you take lightly? That’s unfortunate. And hypocritical.

Again with the flaming: hypocritical is a strong word, disproportionate and not accurate in this context.

Sure, but strongly analytical, logically rigorous arguments are the kind of arguments I use and such arguments are intrinsically ‘dominating.’ Is it fair to fault me for using such arguments?

I didn’t say that. First of all, you believe that your arguments are “strongly analytical” (only, and not in any untoward way “strong”). Others do not agree with you. You are not an island. There’s a sea of intellects here, who have valid observations about the arguments of everybody, including you.

In any case, the fault that people are finding with you is, again, in your dismissive tone.

That sounds like a good idea. I hope you can do that consistently. One question you might ask yourself when doing this is: Am I actually responding to what my interlocutor has written: the actual text, the words, the propositions, the way they are framed as an argument? Or am I just projecting my own view and insisting on it no matter what my interlocutor says? If you’re not sure, or if he has to repeatedly tell you that you’re getting it wrong, you can try to put his argument in your own words and say “so you argument in post such-and-such is …(fill in the blank)?”

You really don’t get it, do you? This thread is about you. You opened it and asked a series of questions. You have been challenged on your assumptions. You have been challenged on the tone of your replies. My suggestion, in the post which you just quoted, was for you to get an Accountability Partner.

(And yes, I was responding, and am responding now, clearly to what you specifically said. I don’t have to ask someone else because I’m actually sufficiently bright to handle any debater on CAF, and well-trained analytically. And so are many others on this very thread, in addition to many not on this thread but on other threads, even if you do not share that opinion; many others do.)

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Let us reason together:

I claim: “Your reasoning is very faulty.”
You get angry (angrier) and claim I am insulting you.
I would be happy to reason with you and explain the faultiness of your reasoning (I actually do this professionally).
But you have no interest in that because you all you see is tainted by your anger.
Your anger further contributes to the faultiness of your reasoning, so you’re trapped in a vicious circle.
And thus you are impossible to reason with.

That’s why I humbly suggest that you need to be the one to take responsibility for your anger. (You can choose to disbelieve me, perhaps, - and you can also attempt to mock me and ignore the content of what I have said, as you usually do - but I am being perfectly sincere in saying this.)

Betterave I am going to ask you a serious question:
Do you really not see why people would find your commentary on their arguments, reasoning skills, etc. offensive and insulting?

Do you see the pattern in things I have re-posted from older threads today?

 

[Betterave]

Again with the flaming: hypocritical is a strong word, disproportionate and not accurate in this context.

So you assert, but… Why is it not accurate??

I didn’t say that. First of all, you believe that your arguments are “strongly analytical” (only, and not in any untoward way “strong”). Others do not agree with you. You are not an island. There’s a sea of intellects here, who have valid observations about the arguments of everybody, including you.

In any case, the fault that people are finding with you is, again, in your dismissive tone.

Again with the question-begging! What makes a given ‘observation’ ‘valid’? Can you unleash your wonderful analytic skills and answer that question? Question-begging, straw man, etc. observations are not ‘valid’ in any of the books I own.

You really don’t get it, do you? This thread is about you. You opened it and asked a series of questions. You have been challenged on your assumptoins. You have been challenged on the tone of your replies. My suggestion, in the post which you just quoted, was for you to get an Accountability Partner.

(And yes, I was responding, and am responding now, clearly to what you specifically said. I don’t have to ask someone else because I’m actually really bright, and well-trained analytically. And so are many others on this very thread, in addition to many not on this thread but on other threads, even if you do not share that opinion; many others do.)

You seem a little obsessed with defending how bright you are. Sorry, not interested in that discussion.