you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (17 children)

Why does the very first statement in your title contain an ad hominem, if you are trying to enforce the rules on to others? You know ad hominem is low on the pyramid of debate...

Walk the walk first, brother.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

The summarizing ad hominem title is further explained within the post. I'd agree that ad hominems without explanation are problematic, and as The Pyramid Of Debate says it's an attack of another's characteristics or authority but not the substance of the argument. Despite my mini-essay proposal not even being a debate, I presented sufficient explanations and citations including actual debate that explicitly refutes the central points of their bullshit.

Show me where I'm not walking the walk.

[–]magnora7 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

The part where you said an ad hominem in your first line which you know is against the pyramid of debate. Stop doing that stuff if you want to be listened to when it comes to enforcing the rules on others.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I cannot agree more, M7. I think Carswell has a point in this post and ShalomEveryone's communications are pure poison, however that does not excuse such ad hominems. We have to be better than that. I personally have had some difficulties conforming to the Pyramid of Debate early on, but I think I am getting better at it, and want to thank you for this invaluable tool for higher quality discussion.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

It's not an ad hominem when it's an opening summary of a mini essay thesis that I prove to be true.

Valid types of ad hominem arguments

Argument from commitment

An ad hominem argument from commitment is a type of valid argument that employs, as a dialectical strategy, the exclusive utilization of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of those holding the position being argued against, i.e., arguments constructed on the basis of what other people hold to be true. [...] This type of argument is also known as the ex concessis argument (Latin for "from what has been conceded already").

Ad hominem arguments, testimony and authority

Ad hominem arguments are relevant where the person being criticised is advancing arguments from authority, or testimony based on personal experience, rather than proposing a formal syllogism.

An example is a dialogue at the court, where the attorney cross-examines an eyewitness, bringing to light the fact that the witness was convicted in the past for lying. This might suggest the conclusion that the witness should not be trusted, which would not be a fallacy.

Criticism as a fallacy

Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.

~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Valid_types_of_ad_hominem_arguments

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

M7 is correct. If I had called someone "a full of shit enemy of humanity," I'd be banned.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (7 children)

M7 is correct.

Hardly surprising coming from an authoritarian kiss ass suck up disciple of magnora7.

If I had called someone "a full of shit enemy of humanity," I'd be banned.

You were banned and you should have stayed banned because you're also a full of shit enemy of humanity with your love of authoritarianism, expert$, liar media, and Big Pharma.

Fuck off or wake up.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

This too is low POD, as usual. Do think about the site rules. (This is obviously not about M7. You're not helping Saidit when you are always allowed to break the rules.)

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

low POD, as usual.

This is a LIE, as expected.

I'm only aggressive to pieces full of shit enemies of humanity who support the establishment authoritarians and their eugenics depopulation /s/Agenda21_Agenda2030. Call that low POD all you want. I call it defense in this global class war.

Do think about the site rules.

Your condescending bullshit is low tier.

(This is obviously not about M7.

You're correct. You're sticking your nose into a conversation for no good reason. Fuck off, trouble maker.

You're not helping Saidit when you are always allowed to break the rules.)

You wouldn't know how to help SaidIt if it were spelled out for you. F.U.C.K. O.F.F. T.R.O.L.L. Or better, wake the flock up.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I hate to say it, Jason, but you've GIVEN socks the opportunity to be right and lecture you on proper saidit-iquette. No doubt, the ignominy of this is absolutely scathing. And while I agree with you that this site would be infinitely better off without the likes of u/socks and u/ShalomEveryone, I have to say that your take on this situation is hindering more than helping us all. Please stop.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

this site would be infinitely better off without the likes of u/socks and u/ShalomEveryone

Interesting point. Some of the users here have said the opposite, because disagreements can build conversations and debates. I have a list of users who've disagreed with the extreme right-wing propaganda on Saidit, and have left within a few months. Perhaps you could raise your comment as a question in /s/AskSaidit and see what happens. I think Saidit has potential as a site for political debate, partially because users here seem to be somewhat less extreme, and seem to be older, but it can't keep users who disagree with the right-wing party line. Still, it's not like patriots.win, which is insane, and has many users. Perhaps Saidit will remain as it has this past year. But for those who want Saidit to grow (/u/magnora7), they could discuss what you've mentioned. There are periods when this is a popular subject on Saidit.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I don't give a shit about socks or anything he says.

I can take it or leave it with you. Your ideas are yours. Sometimes you're good, sometimes very good, sometimes you're not at all. IMO. But no matter how much we've disagreed, you've never been ban-worthy.

I have to say that your take on this situation is hindering more than helping us all. Please stop.

Clearly convince me and I may.

[–]ShalomEveryone 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Perhaps he believes it's not an ad-hominem when he does it?

Shalom

✡️

[–]AXXA 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I'm glad you haven't left my friend. I don't know if you're authentic or a troll and I truly don't care. You follow the rules better than most people here. And you represent a position that is underrepresented here. To me it seems like the world's problems come about because we're afraid to talk to people we disagree with. I wish people would understand that it's okay to disagree. It's actually better that way. The more viewpoints we have the better we can consider and understand the best way forward. And often that could be a combination or compromise of different viewpoints.

[–]ShalomEveryone 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I'm glad you haven't left my friend.

I wanted to reply earlier but it's been a hectic week. I didn't want to reply to a few comments and then disappear. I wait until there's down time so I can reply back to a lot of message and will be in a position to have a back and forth like you and I are having right now.

I don't know if you're authentic or a troll and I truly don't care.

I'm authentic, I believe what the problem is with some is that they have strong opinions about people/events and my opinions differ. I have no problem making my opinions known, I have no problem challenging other's opinion. Some see I don't back down and they get upset.

You follow the rules better than most people here

I do my best to follow the rules, I know my opinions aren't popular with a lot of popular here. By following the rules, I wont give them ammunition for baseless claims of me being a troll. I've never been into trolling, I say something outlandish, someone replies in kind and we're supposed to keep going on in circles? That's boring. Having genuine spirited conversation is fun, a lot can be learned. For instance, there was a guy who learned about the Anne Frank "ballpoint pen myth".

u/JoeyJoeJoe said the following

Thank you for taking the time to refute the ballpoint story with some credible evidence. I had heard the anecdote (with no evidence) but it's always been on my "maybe" list of possibilities in the back of my mind. Thanks for helping clean out the rubbish. 😁👍

https://saidit.net/s/news/comments/8syg/anne_frank_betrayal_suspect_identified_after_77/wmgf

And you represent a position that is underrepresented here.

You got that right, lol.

To me it seems like the world's problems come about because we're afraid to talk to people we disagree with.

Yes, a lot of grief in the world would be prevented if people would have open and honest dialogue.

It's actually better that way.

Yes, saidit would be boring if everybody agreed with everyone. What's interesting about everybody agreeing? That's boring.

The more viewpoints we have the better we can consider and understand the best way forward.

I agree.

And often that could be a combination or compromise of different viewpoints.

Again, I agree.

Shalom

✡️

[–]bucetao6969 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Based