NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9743024&postcount=40

This was after I asked him to stop. I normally dislike asking for moderation, but when someone simply shouts a name without any name to it, it gets to me.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9743884&postcount=52
but when someone simply shouts a name without any name to it,Huh?

I think he was referring to being called a bigot.

Yeah, my mind was preoccupied when I wrote that, lol...

But he keeps going at it...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9753226&postcount=187

I admit I'm being somewhat snarky but he is calling people bigots again, including me and I didn't even say what he's accusing me for being a bigot for saying.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9753643&postcount=192
"Fine. Bigots :rolleyes:"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9753226&postcount=187
What? Because he said 'jackass'?

Same for yours, Jocabia. It's a heated debate. If you're going to go for the jugular, you can't come to us when your opponent does the same.

What? Because he said 'jackass'?

Same for yours, Jocabia. It's a heated debate. If you're going to go for the jugular, you can't come to us when your opponent does the same.

Calling people Bigot and jackass and racist constantly isn't trolling, flaming, or at the least, flamebait?

Notice I havn't used on ad hominem attack, yet recieved what might well reach into the higher double digits.

What? Because he said 'jackass'?

Same for yours, Jocabia. It's a heated debate. If you're going to go for the jugular, you can't come to us when your opponent does the same.

Yes, except he was already told to stop calling people bigots by Frisbeeteria.

Yes, except he was already told to stop calling people bigots by Frisbeeteria.
Not exactly. I told him to knock off the ad hominem attacks. Calling someone a bigot when they are making arguments based on bigotry isn't necessarily the same.

Not exactly. I told him to knock off the ad hominem attacks. Calling someone a bigot when they are making arguments based on bigotry isn't necessarily the same.

Only, I didn't. He was talking about an argument someone else made. And he basically said everyone disagreeing with him was doing it because they are bigots. I never contended that black people were aborting criminals. I only pointed out that the birth rate of black people is higher than average so abortion cannot account for a slower than average population growth. There is no way that can be attributed to racism by a rational person. In fact, there is no way that can even be disagreed with by a rational person. However, if you'd like to demonstrate how it's otherwise, be my guest.

EDIT: Meh. It doesn't really matter. It's not like people can't see through him. When he can't support his argument he calls people names. It's his modus operandi.

In fact, there is no way that can even be disagreed with by a rational person.Jolt has an ignore feature. Use it.

Not exactly. I told him to knock off the ad hominem attacks. Calling someone a bigot when they are making arguments based on bigotry isn't necessarily the same.

Jackass isn't ad hominem?

Jackass isn't ad hominem?No. It isn't.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

An insult is not necessarily an ad hominem attack.

No. It isn't.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

An insult is not necessarily an ad hominem attack.

He is attacking me, not my argument. I fail to see how its not ad hominem.

At the very least, its flamebait.

He is attacking me, not my argument. I fail to see how its not ad hominem.Try reading the definition. Simply attacking you is not an ad hominem.

"You're an idiot." Not ad hominem.
"You're an idiot, and thus your argument is wrong." Ad hominem.
"Your argument is wrong because of A, B, and C. Since you can't grasp this, you're an idiot." NOT ad hominem.

Try reading the definition. Simply attacking you is not an ad hominem.

"You're an idiot." Not ad hominem.
"You're an idiot, and thus your argument is wrong." Ad hominem.
"Your argument is wrong because of A, B, and C. Since you can't grasp this, you're an idiot." NOT ad hominem.

Okay, I conceded the point (that we are all being fairly snarky), but I can't let that go. Are you seriously arguing that the offense of greenlander that Frisbeeteria was suggesting would eventually exceed the patience of the mods was that he used a logical fallacy and not that he flamed or flamebaited? Or are you trying to argue that logical fallacies are flamebaity(yeah, I know it's not a word) in nature? You make it sound as if Fris would only have a problem with GL's actions if he suggests that the names he uses make the arguments wrong. Am I reading that right?

Also, ad hominems can be implied. They do not have to be explicit.

I'm not arguing whether it's actionable or not, I accept that it's not and even agree. But you continued the argument so I have to ask.