Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, but if you say that police bigotry against furries is a problem because furries are one hundred times more likely to be arrested than non-furries, I don't think I should have to state that I agree with you before pointing out that it isn't true. That's just a lazy cop-out to insist that people agree with your premise before they're allowed to question your facts. If you disagree with the premise, argue against the premise instead of engaging in propaganda bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:49 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Your premise should follow from the facts. Rational people don't decide on a conclusion and then go looking for facts that support it. Nor do they believe that a conclusion should still stand if the supporting assertions are disproved. Did they never teach you the scientific method in school, dipshit? Hypothesis comes before experiment. In addition, I don't believe you understand the actual premise here, and are operating on the assumption everyone should be a legalistic wretch of some kind. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 02:39
|
|
twodot posted:Why is this a problem? We have two posters: Well, twodot, it's a tactic designed to be unproductive, because the guy using it in this thread immediately admitted that, actually, he disagrees with the premises. So it's all about avoiding real engagement in actual practice. So it's, in turn, an example of dishonest behavior, because it's about attacking without engaging. Thus, people who want to be honest should avoid using it. Maoist Pussy posted:What things do we need to keep in mind about how pounding men in the butt is different today than in the age of Paul? Like, this guy here, unwilling to actually upfront say that he believes Christianity is inherently gay-hatin', only insinuating such.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
twodot posted:Oh weird, you made a post that isn't full of garbage. How can a post that is correcting what all sides agree is a mistake be considered unproductive? Surely ridding a thread of inaccuracy is productive behavior? If someone sincerely believes someone made a mistake, how can correcting it be considered dishonest? I don't understand why avoiding "real engagement" is considered a problem, in fact, Ytlaya seems to believe that it's fine to avoid real engagement so long as you put magic words in front your lack of engagement declaring which tribe you belong to. Here's an example: Okay. I see that you're using "tribe" here, and also being a snotty lil prick. Put together, these suggest, that is to say, they create the implication, that you believe yourself to be rational, as opposed to the loony libz. This in turn actually degrades the conversation, because only obsessive psychopaths will continue for long when a smarmy dickhead is demanding that they (metaphorically) eat poo poo with every post and most people will back down at the first sign of this happening. So, while it is possible for someone to genuinely correct inaccuracies out of a neutral perspective, it's far more common to see someone doing it who is giving off signs they wish to argue from a safe distance, generally, it seems, because they have a particular kind of brain damage, like yourself. As a consequence, even though you may just possibly be sincere about your desire to only tread the upward path and merely ensure accuracy, you lack the communication skills to make that happen and so you will either have to deal with it or run crying to the mods demanding that nobody be allowed to make these kinds of accusations. Since you can't understand a very basic generalization, or else are deliberately avoiding the topic, you're either too stupid or malevolent to do the former. So I look forward to the continual whine as people freely engage in propaganda tactics and bald dishonesty, and all who point this out are relentlessly probated, and so on and so forth.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 20:50
|
|
twodot posted:I thought implying that your posts are typically full of garbage would be the thing that would tip you off that I think you're an idiot. Well, okay, you've managed to successfully convince me you're a loving idiot, rather than malevolent. It seems you can learn. Your post basically misses the entire point and skims along for a good fifty feet. The point, here, is that the complaint is about how most of the "just making corrections" posts connote dishonest argumentation. Indeed, people actually admit to this connotation being an accurate one! So if you want to avoid those associations, you need to formulate your correction in such a way as to avoid this connotation. People do this all the time. A good place to start would be to avoid calling people crazy, as a general rule, when you're making those corrections. I know this will be a burden for such supremely rational and saintly people who face these unjust accusations, but you'll just have to lump it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 21:50
|
|
twodot posted:I'm missing your point because your point is not related to mine, so feel free to stop quoting me. Free standing factual corrections should not be considered bad faith actions, because that is ridiculous. Pragmatically, maybe that belief is in the minority and if I personally want people to like me I should take that into account, but that's not an argument for considering factual corrections bad faith actions. Okay. So. Dead Reckoning admitted, right in this thread, to following the exact process that people are accused of engaging in. So, in fact, people do make *in nasally voice* "bad faith actions" under the guise of corrections. That is an indisputable fact. It's also true that not everyone faces those accusations. I am arguing that this is because people primarily use connotations in the post itself to conclude whether the post is in bad faith. Your argument is that we should give people free reign to argue in bad faith. You use words like "pragmatic" to disguise this fundamentally idiotic position, probably because you are an idiot.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 22:07
|
|
twodot posted:Someone can claim to be making a factual correction in bad faith, but that doesn't make it true. Correcting a false statement simply can't be dishonest (I suppose excepting a person who was attempting to be dishonest, but accidently made a true correction). You can argue in bad faith and also offer factual corrections, but the factual corrections themselves can only be right or wrong. That's the whole point of disconnecting them from broader points. Well, buddy, if you're going to argue that we should view things without any context and always treat things in isolation, you can go ahead and claim victory here. Just make sure to explain how you did it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 22:22
|
|
tsa posted:Except counseling is something that can be legally done with no or next to no credentials. Besides that, chiropractors exist and many of them even pretend to be doctors. If someone is just giving off advice and make no pretenses about being medically trained to do so ( in this case calling themselves a LPC or LPC-I) the complaint seems utterly vacuous. This is just a big is-ought fallacy. If we are not married to the status quo, we can put forth the argument that professional standards ought to exist for psychological counseling and that chiropractic practitioners should be required to disassociate themselves from the aura of medicine.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:49 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:Giving medical advice isn't considered "practicing medicine" unless the person doing it claims to be an actual doctor. That's why SA can have an entire forum dedicated to amateur medical advice, why WebMD and countless amateur medical forums exists, and why saying "suck it up and take some Tylenol" isn't an arrestable offense. Well, that didn't happen in this thread. Parallel Paraplegic argued on the grounds of "should/ought", tsa responded in terms of confusing "is" and "ought", and you decided to make some backhanded, whiny accusations.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 03:34
|
|