Feminists versus MRA's at Toronto College

Post Reply New Topic

Undoubtedly,

I hope they find them!!

I don't suppose any quotes of me claiming to be a debate expert or a neutral party are forthcoming?

I don't see why else you would strut around gratuitously dealing out stylistic and methodological criticism and rebukes other than operating under the premise of authority. Not that I think you share Ancalagon's problem with lack of content and dishonesty, or that you are not a good debater; quite the opposite, you are actually very good and I have come to expect a lot of useful insight from you. In this case I just think you are way off

Grow up.


I have no idea what you're talking about. If you have any evidence or reasoning to support your position, by all means mention them.


I deny both of these assertions. If you wish to make an actual point with actual evidence or actual reasoning, please don't let me stop you. I would appreciate it if you would attempt to reduce the number of personal insults to less than usual.


The quotes are accurate. The words you are trying to put in my mouth still aren't.

Since all you're giving is a bald assertion here, I don't actually need to debunk it. I will anyway, since I'd rather avoid yet another post with an identical unsupported claim that I'd said something I didn't.

I will call my statement A and the incorrect interpretation B. I will not edit B, and will slightly edit A to make it shorter and more direct.

A: "Saying, 'that's a bald assertion' is entirely adequate to debunk bald assertions."
B: "you stated you have no need to make any actual points"

Let's consider a situation where I wish to make a point, supported by reasoning and/or evidence. This point, whether correct or incorrect, is not a bald assertion, since it has supporting reasoning and/or evidence. According to statement B, I don't need to make the point at all. Statement A makes no assertions about whether the point needs to be made, since it only addresses bald assertions, and this point is not one. Statement A and statement B give different advice on the same situation, consequently, they are not at all the same.

^

You say bald assertion where I say naked assertion, but I think they amount to the same thing, an unsupported claim. I don't know why some people have such a problem when called on these, avoiding them is like arguing 101.

How can this quote be inaccurate? It is your words!



You mean your own words as quoted? Those words?



I look forward to the day that you stop weaseling out of your statements less than ten posts after you make them



You'll "slightly edit it" to remove the part where you give your opinion that simply referring to something as an assertion is enough to debunk it. but it is a less interesting method than the douchey tit-for-tat mirroring you consider acceptable discourse. Either way, your standards for "debunking" an argument are fairly underwhelming



Actually, your A to B chronology is incorrect. Your "Interpretation B" is not a response to that statement, but to this one:



Its not my job to educate you on the topic at hand. Your ignorance of the evidence does not mean people referring to it are making unsupported assertions. If you have no knowledge of a topic, it might be better for you to just not get involved rather than quashing it



I did not make a bald assertion, there is ample evidence for my claim. I would even call it self-evident. You are just feigning ignorance as per usual because that is the only way you can argue with me

Does one need to be an authority to point out an obvious error? If I see someone struggling to start a lawn mower and suggest they set the choke, am I acting presumptuously by doing so? So far, you've resorted to personal insults virtually unprovoked within 2 posts of being questioned, made paranoid accusations about the intentions of other posters, stereotyped large groups of people based on your personal experience alone, and generally displayed a level of belligerence far out of proportion to the other posters in the thread. It doesn't take a communications major to point out the flaws in that approach...

I'd also like to know what exactly I'm off about. In this thread I've claimed that you overreacted to another poster, that your accusation of trolling was unfounded, that engaging in behavior you condemn in others is hypocrisy, that stereotyping based on personal experience is bad, and that argumentum ad absurdum is a legitimate technique. Two of those things are clearly my personal opinions, so what exactly is it that you think I'm so wrong about?

Everything else aside though, my problem here is the speed with which you resorted to insults and made this personal, that was completely uncalled for and I really don't understand why you thought it necessary.

You are equating an obvious struggle with a machine with your opinion that my argument was not sound. Your advice was unsolicited and condescending which is your usual MO when you saunter in with the authority hat on



"virtually" unprovoked seems to imply you might perhaps see the problem. I also don't think describing an argumentative tactic as lazy or incompetent is a personal insult



You mean a poster with a long-standing animosity towards me who consistently engages in the exact same behavior and derails any discussion he finds that I am involved in? The poster who has lied repeatedly in this thread and attempted to weasel out of his own statements more than once? That poster?

You have had thread followers who try and shut down any of your discussions before I'm sure, I would think you'd be able to empathize



Not my own experience alone; I have not said anything of the kind. Rather observations of their actions and rhetoric lead me to this conclusion. I provided personal experience for further context. This is something that is self-evident though based on your response earlier I don't think you are willing to admit MRAs are frequently violent, knuckle dragging scumbags



That's your opinion, you see my response to mocking behavior as belligerent, because you won't acknowledge that the mocking behavior was belligerent to begin with, or that Ancalagon has a running fight with me



Your opinion, based on you applying tone to my posts



Your opinion



I'm pretty sure that's what I said to you



You're right, too bad that has no bearing on the discussion



I will note that you consider childish word swapping and twisting to be legitimate applications of "argumentum ad absurdum" for future reference



More than two, actually



I don't have any personal animosity towards anybody, I don't see trollish word swapping as a productive style of discourse, and I think anybody who engages in it is either incompetent, intellectually lazy or malicious. Since you picked this fight by rebuking me with passive-aggressive condescension, I would say you are engaging in a far more personal fight than I. All I ever did was state my opinion; something you and others here are doing gratuitously, but of course, that is different, right? Utter disingenuous BS. If you don't like my posts, use the Greasemonkey Firefox extension and Vex's code to ignore them, as I told Ancalagon.

Read what I write. Do not read what you wish I had said. Do not read what you imagine I will say. Read what I actually write.

What I actually wrote was this: "The quotes are accurate." Not inaccurate.




I have made it clear from the beginning that I stand by what I wrote, and that, for whatever reason, you didn't understand what I wrote. I am defending my statements as they were stated.

I look forward to the day when you will make a substantial argument with zero insults.


The slight edit swaps the order of two things in a way that does not alter the meaning, and eliminates an "It" at the beginning of the first sentence and an "also works, but is less interesting" at the end of the second.

What possible problem could you have with that?

More importantly, I have never ever said that "simply referring to something as an assertion is enough to debunk it". That is not in the statement A version, nor in the unedited version. I did not say that because that was not what I meant.


I have not discussed my standards for debunking an argument. I have stated them for debunking a bald assertion. They are not the same.


This is your argument I'm trying to counter. If you can't be bothered to state it clearly, that is not my fault.

If you want me to show you where your confusion is, then put two quotes together, one from me and one from you, where I've said that that wasn't what I said, and where you think the statements are the same.


Whether the evidence for an assertion exists is not relevant to whether it is a bald assertion.


You'd call this self-evident? "MRA is usually just a euphemism for anti-women's rights. They seem to think rights are a zero-sum game."

If so, that's not what self-evident means. You also appear not to have bothered to look up 'bald assertion', still.

QFT

If you can't even stick with your statements I don't see where this discussion can possibly go. You can pat yourself on the back for derailing yet another thread with your tedious non-argument

Describing an argumentative tactic as lazy is not a personal insult. Describing an argumentative tactic as incompetent is an insult, since incompetence is an attribute of people, not arguments. But that isn't what you did.

Here's what you actually said, within 2 posts of being questioned, before either Dox or myself had entered the thread: "We can keep playing this game but all we're really accomplishing is demonstrating your laziness and ineptitude as you apparently are not able to form a coherent argument of your own"

You insulted Greb by calling him lazy, inept, and unable to form a coherent argument. Note that you did not say his argument was incoherent, which is a description of facts, but that he was unable to form one, which insults him, personally. You seem to think that quibbling about whether you were provoked will excuse you. What provocation? The part where he disagreed with you? The part where he persisted in disagreeing with you for a second post?

You owe Greb an apology for that and for the separate insult you made, where you laughed at his ability to articulate things (also unprovoked).

You didn't even bother to read what I wrote. I have been and still am standing by my statements. You have not been able to clearly point out what exactly you think the problem is. That's not my fault. If you want to support your argument, then stop talking about it and do it.

Check his profile. I did, since his inmaturity and lack of logic were not typical from aspergers. And of course, he's a NT. You can not try to reason with him, since his logical skills are disabled. It's like trying to explain a math problem to a person with Down syndrome.

Interesting you feel you can tell me "what I really did" while denying anybody from describing your actions



His actions deserved such a description. He did not form a coherent argument, he just copy pasted my posts and returned them to me. I would say that is a sign of laziness, incompetence or inability to formulate an argument of one's own. Or, as it was, an attempt to provoke me, since Greb disagreed but was unable to formulate a counter argument of any sort. He just rearranged words, which you and Dox are now defending to unexpected and highly entertaining levels



He didn't form an argument of his own. He just mirrored my posts in an attempt to mock me. He got exactly what he deserves, just like you



Yes, I know, you don't acknowledge Greb's actions as provocative. You aren't honest, you have a personal problem with me, and you will milk any opportunity you can to make this clear. Congratulations



I owe Greb nothing of the kind, though I'm sure he is happy you're fighting his battle for him since he can't form arguments of his own. Check out this gem from him here:



Your buddy Greb has no problem generalizing "NTs" (aka the vast majority of the human race), and then applying that label to me based on his viewing my profile (where it says nothing of my own status, good job Greb, you're quite the little investigator aren't you)

Oh, and Greb- I know many people with Downs Syndrome who can do math and could probably formulate a better argument than you, and are probably better human beings on top of that. Its good that you are letting your bigotry out though, because it makes it all the more clear that you had bad intentions to begin with and Doxy and Ancal are fools to defend you. Thanks for proving my point for me.