6 ms·

See, your talking but saying nothing. Most of us understand what "zeal" is and being condescending isn't doing you any favors. "A is A" has no value. It's not

• User23 5y ago
  > See, your talking but saying nothing. You might want to use that edit button yourself. Then again the issue might be a general lack of command of the English language rather than a typographic error, as demonstrated by your demonstrated inability or unwillingness to use a dictionary. > "A is A" has no value. It's not an axiom, it's a tautology. It is true by virtue of being itself. You're saying "zealots are zealots". Which, ok. But it doesn't tell us what zealots are. Or what you think they are. Thank you for the succinct demonstration of ignorance of both logic and the purpose of dictionaries. It sounds like you once "lost" a debate and your interlocutor used the word "tautology" and now you think it's some kind of magic I win button. > And it's not a logical error. It's what you did with your edit. If not all who downvoted you and him are zealots, then you can't use the fact that you were downvoted as proof of zealotry. Which you did. Downvotes only go to like -4 around here. What? Study some basic first order logic please. Also, consider adding the word "germane" to your lexicon. Oh and work on your reading comprehension. > Besides your claim that "the zealots are after you". You do realize that using quotation marks around a fabricated quote is dishonest, don't you? And since I'm feeling charitable, for that matter the word you're looking for is once again "you're." And if you really want to expand your mind look up "gerunds." > You do not discuss in good faith. And the evidence is in your posts. You think using words like axiom and pragmatic means you're making good points. You're not. Because you apparently don't know what they mean. Thank you for the case study of a midwit projecting his own intellectual inadequacies on his interlocutor. Sadly, I don't think further discussion with you is going to satisfy my, or anyone's, intellectual curiosity.
  • bena 5y ago
    "As demonstrated by your demonstrated inability" I made a simple typo. You can choose to focus on that rather than any substance. It only continues to highlight your unwillingness to engage in good faith. You apparently think saying a lot of words means you're saying a lot. Just like your obsession with the word "interlocutor". Always use the five dollar word when possible, I guess. I don't think it's a magic I win button. It is, ironically enough, what it is. Saying something is itself doesn't add to a conversation. If you can't see that, that's your problem. You think accusing the other side of not using logic is some sort of magic "I win" button however. What I did was basic inference. By noting that being downvoted is proof of zealotry, it stands to reason that zealots must be downvoting you more than the general population. Because if the general population is also downvoting you, then being downvoted can't be evidence of zealotry. You can't have it both ways. If being downvoted is proof of zealotry, then you must be accusing those downvoting you of being zealots. If you're explicitly not doing that and saying downvotes can be coming from anywhere, then being downvoted isn't proof of zealotry. That's basic logic that you're failing. They were scare quotes. Because your premise is ridiculous. And the word is "your", it's not "you are claim", it is a claim that you are making. I like how you're so eager to jump on any little thing at all, that you over-corrected and made the same mistake yourself. I mean, no discussion with you is going to satisfy anyone. Unless you're satisfying yourself with your own mental mastubatory fantasy that you're destroying people with "reason and logic". You still haven't actually responded to anything of substance. You just go on, incorrectly, about what is and is not logic and fail to do the very basic thing asked of you: What, to you, is a climate zealot? Without using the word zealot, without saying it's obvious, or any other dodge. You aren't as opaque as you think you are.
    • User23 5y ago
      > gamma posturing I’ll own my erroneous correction. Its only fair to recognize the exceptional, for you, achievement of making a valid constructive criticism, however trivial. However your reasoning is otherwise so fallacious I don’t think it’s worth trying to go through the errors. Suffice to say that what you are claiming are inferences are actually, charitably construed, at best enthymemes with a dishonest unstated leg. I’m pleased you don’t find me opaque since I didn’t intend to be and thus I’ll leave it as an exercise for you to identify specific examples, since I don’t see any point in spelling it out further.