No, of course not…
…**my learned discourse). **
http://digiana.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/short-guy-3.jpg
That’s a whole lot of talking that ignores the only definition of “private” that fits the circumstance, I would think that prior to so much typing, you would have bothered to look up the definition.
confined to particular persons or groups or providing privacy;
See, no backpedaling needed.
It sounds increasingly like you think this “private place” … a private message, where others cannot read what we write.
Now this is just plainly irrational. You’re words were “Another thread”. There is no way for me to infer a “private message” from that, so I am curious as to what your basing the inference on?
Unless its another assumption.
Now, as to your suspicions…
Because it should be bloody well obvious…where the only people who will read it are those masochistic enough to delve the depths of the philosophy section and engage with the resident brick-walls here.
Now that you’re changing your story and claiming that you thought all along that I was suggesting a new public conversation, perhaps you can tell us how a new public conversation would “avoid having [my] arguments examined,” rather than doing the exact polar opposite of that?
You claim I am changing my story, because you don’t know the definition of the word private. While at the same time claiming that what you said, is not what you meant.
Who is backpedaling again?
I am not the one changing stories or claiming that I didn’t say what I said. You are claiming that you meant “off topic” when you never said that at all. I would call that a change in story.
Hmmm, whats the word for one who does the thing he condemns?
Yes. Care to guess who?..
The entire argument being presented on the thread is disingenuous and engaged in only by those intellectually dishonest enough to overlook the glaring problems with it.
So now everyone who posted on this thread is intellectually dishonest?
Funny enough, you posted on the thread and I’m sure that other posters think that you are ignoring glaring problems as well. That seems to imply that you are lumping yourself into the category of intellectually dishonest people. Is that correct? or are you somehow different than the other people on this thread?
Hmmm, whats the word for one who does the thing he condemns?
Further, the thread is populated by people – or, at least one person – who make claims, only to backpedal on them and try to pretend that they were claiming something else originally.
I know, I just exposed him trying to claim that he meant “off topic” when he said “I would like to discuss with someone who’s intellectually honest. Another thread, perhaps?”
I’ll tell you something, warpspeedpetey. You were one of the posters here who I figured out very early on were not worth talking to, and I make it a habit to routinely ignore your posts. I’m not trying to be mean – I’m merely explaining why it is that I usually have no desire to talk to you
Yes, I know you ignore posts. Its funny that so often they seem to be posts that demonstrate the holes in your arguments. That’s a large part of the reason I am so offended at the implications and now statements that people engaged on the thread are intellectually dishonest. They weren’t ignoring posts detrimental to their position. You were.
I really wish I could remember the right word for someone who does the thing that he condemns…arggh!
and why I am about to go back to ignoring you after utterly destroying your ridiculous assumptions about me.
Please post the assumption I made, that you believe you have destroyed? I am only using the words you wrote. You and M are making assumptions, as I have demonstrated. M claimed to have made deductions from a 2 word premise that could only be reached by assumption. You are insisting that I should have assumed you meant one thing when your words implied another.
This isn’t an “ad hominem,” … An “ad hominem” is a logical fallacy in which one asserts that another is wrong because of certain personal flaws. Merely pointing out the flaws, without linking them to an argument, is not an ad hominem – it is merely a personal comment, and in this case, it is a relevant and pertinent observation about you.
So how do you explain this then? Its like you’ve never seen a dictionary before. This is hilarious. You are clearly trying to link the validity of my claims to what you claim my personal characteristics are.
An ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), short for argumentum ad hominem,
is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]
…** It’s a good lesson for everyone else: think twice before you poke a sleeping dragon with a stick**.
Did you really just refer to yourself as a “sleeping dragon”? Wow, just wow.
http://digiana.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/short-guy-3.jpg
I think that you know you were wrong for implying and then stating that the people on the thread are “intellectually dishonest” When are you going to simply admit it and apologize?
