Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6735172" data-attributes="member: 177">No.&nbsp; I do not assume the goal.&nbsp; I assume the *audience*.&nbsp; Since you are posting on EN World, the audience is, perforce, EN World.&nbsp; You cannot avoid that audience.&nbsp; And while you say you intend another audience... well, we will deal with that presently.This is not the planet Vulcan.&nbsp; Everyone thinks irrationally from time to time.&nbsp; Everyone responds to tone.&nbsp; The perfectly rational audience is a myth.&nbsp; Even an audience that does not currently have a strong opinion on the matter will respond to the tone of your argument, as well as the content.&nbsp; Oh, this was not a good, rational statement on your part.&nbsp; First off, this is ad hominem, specifically Bulverism.&nbsp; You think they are wrong, come up with a psychological reason they are wrong (in this case, the vague &quot;irrationality&quot;), and then use that to dismiss them without having to properly deal with their points.&nbsp; In a rational argument, you address the logic of the positions, not the persons of the speakers, as the nature or mental state of the speaker does not itself inform you if the speaker is correct.You have, recently in the discussion, also stepped afoul of &quot;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy" target="_blank">argument from fallacy</a>&quot; - having found one element of GNS that is not true, you discount the whole.&nbsp; This, also, is not logically sound.&nbsp; Each element needs to be found faulty on its own - there is no guilt by association here.You have, arguably, also fallen prey to &quot;proof by assertion&quot; - repeating the same point many times, without substantive change, as if that makes it any more correct or compelling by repetition.Lastly, we have as an excuse for it all, an appeal to the well-being of an audience we do not actually know is present.&nbsp; Does it seem &quot;rational&quot; to you to carry on a discussion for 20+ pages to serve people who may not even be there? Moreover, while you claim to be targeting only a rational audience, they'd have to discard much of your presentation due to these, and a few other, logical fallacies - if you are targeting this supposed audience, you are failing to do it well.Overall, we see many illogical elements to your own presentation, such that we cannot really call your position supremely rational based on what you write.&nbsp; This leads us to two possibilities:1) You yourself are rational, but make irrational arguments.&nbsp; Then, others may also be rational, but make irrational arguments, and you must accept the possible rationality of the others.2) You yourself are not particularly rational on this topic.Either way, the result is that you should treat them with respect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6735172, member: 177"] No. I do not assume the goal. I assume the *audience*. Since you are posting on EN World, the audience is, perforce, EN World. You cannot avoid that audience. And while you say you intend another audience... well, we will deal with that presently. This is not the planet Vulcan. Everyone thinks irrationally from time to time. Everyone responds to tone. The perfectly rational audience is a myth. Even an audience that does not currently have a strong opinion on the matter will respond to the tone of your argument, as well as the content. Oh, this was not a good, rational statement on your part. First off, this is [i]ad hominem[/i], specifically Bulverism. You think they are wrong, come up with a psychological reason they are wrong (in this case, the vague "irrationality"), and then use that to dismiss them without having to properly deal with their points. In a rational argument, you address the logic of the positions, not the persons of the speakers, as the nature or mental state of the speaker does not itself inform you if the speaker is correct. You have, recently in the discussion, also stepped afoul of "[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy]argument from fallacy[/url]" - having found one element of GNS that is not true, you discount the whole. This, also, is not logically sound. Each element needs to be found faulty on its own - there is no guilt by association here. You have, arguably, also fallen prey to "proof by assertion" - repeating the same point many times, without substantive change, as if that makes it any more correct or compelling by repetition. Lastly, we have as an excuse for it all, an appeal to the well-being of an audience we do not actually know is present. Does it seem "rational" to you to carry on a discussion for 20+ pages to serve people who may not even be there? Moreover, while you claim to be targeting only a rational audience, they'd have to discard much of your presentation due to these, and a few other, logical fallacies - if you are targeting this supposed audience, you are failing to do it well. Overall, we see many illogical elements to your own presentation, such that we cannot really call your position supremely rational based on what you write. This leads us to two possibilities: 1) You yourself are rational, but make irrational arguments. Then, others may also be rational, but make irrational arguments, and you must accept the possible rationality of the others. 2) You yourself are not particularly rational on this topic. Either way, the result is that you should treat them with respect. [/QUOTE]

Verification