3 ms·
> I dislike the dismissive + condescending label you try to attach to someone you haven’t really met. Labeling while effective, is not clean argument. You need
by laumars 7y ago
> I dislike the dismissive + condescending label you try to attach to someone you haven’t really met. Labeling while effective, is not clean argument.
You need to read back this discussion because I've been anything but dismissive and condescending while you have been using language like "condescending", "humiliating", "degrading" and "dismissive" throughout.
In fact if you do read it back you'd also realise that I'm not even disagreeing with the research per se but rather disagreeing with the extreme tone and ideology you're applying to it. The rest of my post is just real world examples demonstrating that point.
- andrei_says_ 7y ago> You're being a tad over dramatic :) You don’t know me, and trying to frame me as something or other is a technique to dismiss my statements. Ad hominem is not an argument, although it works because human brains are vulnerable to fallacies. If you are curious about why I used strong words you may ask :) And, I appreciate the conversation and your clarification.
- laumars 7y ago> You don’t know me, and trying to frame me as something or other is a technique to dismiss my statements. Ad hominem is not an argument, although it works because human brains are vulnerable to fallacies. You're reading far to much into that statement. It was simply an expression stating "your wording is unnecessarily extreme". A point I stand by. The terms you used go far beyond reasonable judgement. > If you are curious about why I used strong words you may ask :) If you're using intentionally provocative wording which requires an explanation then you shouldn't be surprised if people take those comments on face value when you don't supply an explanation.