Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zorku" data-source="post: 6794022" data-attributes="member: 6799940">Yeah. Red Herring.I'm not attacking him for conjecture.I'm not attacking him for conjecture.I'm not...Did I ever pose a false dichotomy? If not, then I haven't done the same thing as him. I thought you liked all of these debate terms. Why are you so reluctant to recognize them now?Yeah, that's why I didn't call it a non sequitur when I was talking to him. That's why I usually stylistically explain the problems I see instead of calling out a fallacy in a vacuum. Since it's not in the quote anymore I'll repeat this: I'm only calling fallacies like this in this weird response chain you've provoked, to give you less to get distracted by.Ok, I'll parse it for you: There is- an argument- here. It- is about- facts- and logic. The presence- of conjecture- is- irrelevant.I know I can't erase it. What I've done instead is stop supporting it. Consider this a victory. I offer no defense for the conjecture I made, and honestly the only degree to which I ever defended it was as an illustration of the point I was making.Do you understand why I don't accept it when you say that I'm a hypocrite for using conjecture? It's got at least a little bit to do with me never having complained about him using conjecture. I've complained about two fallacies in two of his posts. If you're not going to talk about either of those (or after disrespecting me this thoroughly, if you're going to talk about anything from this series of posts other than those fallacies,) then I'm done talking to you.I am actually a bit relieved that you've stopped to think about the tangled mess you've put me through. This has been an absolutely abysmal opening to my birthday.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zorku, post: 6794022, member: 6799940"] Yeah. Red Herring. I'm not attacking him for conjecture. I'm not attacking him for conjecture. I'm not... Did I ever pose a false dichotomy? If not, then I haven't done the same thing as him. I thought you liked all of these debate terms. Why are you so reluctant to recognize them now? Yeah, that's why I didn't call it a non sequitur when I was talking to him. That's why I usually stylistically explain the problems I see instead of calling out a fallacy in a vacuum. Since it's not in the quote anymore I'll repeat this: I'm only calling fallacies like this in this weird response chain you've provoked, to give you less to get distracted by. Ok, I'll parse it for you: There is- an argument- here. It- is about- facts- and logic. The presence- of conjecture- is- irrelevant. I know I can't erase it. What I've done instead is stop supporting it. Consider this a victory. I offer no defense for the conjecture I made, and honestly the only degree to which I ever defended it was as an illustration of the point I was making. Do you understand why I don't accept it when you say that I'm a hypocrite for using conjecture? It's got at least a little bit to do with me never having complained about him using conjecture. I've complained about two fallacies in two of his posts. If you're not going to talk about either of those (or after disrespecting me this thoroughly, if you're going to talk about anything from this series of posts other than those fallacies,) then I'm done talking to you. I am actually a bit relieved that you've stopped to think about the tangled mess you've put me through. This has been an absolutely abysmal opening to my birthday. [/QUOTE]

Verification