4 ms·

Are you... are you trying to prove his point? >Holy narratives batman Postmodern narrative analysis as gloss. >you have ulterior motives for being so disinge

by stult 9y ago

Are you... are you trying to prove his point? >Holy narratives batman Postmodern narrative analysis as gloss. >you have ulterior motives for being so disingenuous Straight into the ad hominem. >when people who have secure livelihoods in whatever form attempt to "educate" or dismiss the complaints others Some other form of privilege you just thought up.

kadenshep 9y ago
>Straight into the ad hominem. That's not an ad hominem. If you're going to use logical fallacies you had best understand what they are. And don't try to partially quote me to make my statements seem more definitive than they were presented. Nothing I said even remotely resembles what his point was attempting to state. And I definitely didn't just construct some random form of privilege there. What is the point of your response to my post?
- Ygg2 9y ago
  > That's not an ad hominem. It absolutely is. You are attacking the person, not his argument.
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote. I'm not taking to disparate events or characteristics and using it to dismiss what he's saying, quite the opposite actually -- I'm saying he's dismissing others, poorly understands what is actually being discussed, and is "misquoting" what other people are actually stating. It's not a fallacy. I could have called it ignorance, but that'd require he demonstrate some unfamiliarity with the subject, which he clearly isn't all that unfamiliar with it. It is strange that his his "quote" is getting a free pass, despite it not having any backing to it what so ever. Have a good read: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
    - Ygg2 9y ago
      > The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote Why? OP claimed to see people on left-wing side use this tactic (and assuming he is telling the truth) how is his/her perspective shifted? The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective". Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form.
      - kadenshep 9y ago
        >The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No one says that. No where in academia does it even approach that. He whimsically went back and forth between pretending to address philosophical tenets and then right in the very core part of his statement, just slapped in a mischaracterization of entire philosophical and anthropological field. He didn't even pretend to transition or weasel that in, he just did it full stop. This conversation is annoying to have because it always devolves into this meta-argument, because people's egos get involved. Try doing that with any other less "fuzzy" subject and people would immediately and rightly call you out on it. Which I did. > Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective". No, my message was specifically and has been repeatedly his "view" is a complete mischaracterization of both the philosophical and social anthropology view points this subject brushes upon. Which is totally and blindingly ironic given his "shut the fuck up" quote. This is where one might get told "to shut the fuck up", as you would in any other discussion on any other subject, when you want to waltz around and wave your own very personal view point around (without any solid basis) when serious subjects are attempting to be discussed. It's a double whammy in that case, because people might realize that you're fully unwilling to reason about your own and other's position in society. >Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form. If we're going to use anecdotes and SJW-boogeyman talking points, then don't pretend that you're addressing philosophical tenets. Just go ahead and do it. As I said in my original post.

by stult 9y ago

kadenshep 9y ago

>Straight into the ad hominem. That's not an ad hominem. If you're going to use logical fallacies you had best understand what they are. And don't try to partially quote me to make my statements seem more definitive than they were presented. Nothing I said even remotely resembles what his point was attempting to state. And I definitely didn't just construct some random form of privilege there. What is the point of your response to my post?

Ygg2 9y ago
> That's not an ad hominem. It absolutely is. You are attacking the person, not his argument.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote. I'm not taking to disparate events or characteristics and using it to dismiss what he's saying, quite the opposite actually -- I'm saying he's dismissing others, poorly understands what is actually being discussed, and is "misquoting" what other people are actually stating. It's not a fallacy. I could have called it ignorance, but that'd require he demonstrate some unfamiliarity with the subject, which he clearly isn't all that unfamiliar with it. It is strange that his his "quote" is getting a free pass, despite it not having any backing to it what so ever. Have a good read: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
  - Ygg2 9y ago
    > The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote Why? OP claimed to see people on left-wing side use this tactic (and assuming he is telling the truth) how is his/her perspective shifted? The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective". Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form.
    - kadenshep 9y ago
      >The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No one says that. No where in academia does it even approach that. He whimsically went back and forth between pretending to address philosophical tenets and then right in the very core part of his statement, just slapped in a mischaracterization of entire philosophical and anthropological field. He didn't even pretend to transition or weasel that in, he just did it full stop. This conversation is annoying to have because it always devolves into this meta-argument, because people's egos get involved. Try doing that with any other less "fuzzy" subject and people would immediately and rightly call you out on it. Which I did. > Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective". No, my message was specifically and has been repeatedly his "view" is a complete mischaracterization of both the philosophical and social anthropology view points this subject brushes upon. Which is totally and blindingly ironic given his "shut the fuck up" quote. This is where one might get told "to shut the fuck up", as you would in any other discussion on any other subject, when you want to waltz around and wave your own very personal view point around (without any solid basis) when serious subjects are attempting to be discussed. It's a double whammy in that case, because people might realize that you're fully unwilling to reason about your own and other's position in society. >Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form. If we're going to use anecdotes and SJW-boogeyman talking points, then don't pretend that you're addressing philosophical tenets. Just go ahead and do it. As I said in my original post.