Really. Like, I totally believe every word Cybyrsage posts. He's got credibility up to here - Ouch! (damn, I accidentally hit my toenail).
Says the guy who can't make the connection that when someone here says faux news they mean Fox News. Really? Really?
...I totally believe every word Cybrsage posts.
Gotcha. Will do, and thanks for the clarification. I can still correct typos in my screen name, though, correct?
shira said:Really. Like, I totally believe every word Cybyrsage posts. He's got credibility up to here - Ouch! (damn, I accidentally hit my toenail).
Good for you, you are gaining wisdom.shira said:....I totally believe every word Cybyrsage posts.
What part of "no quote-crapping" do you not understand?
If you understand the meaning of the word "typo," you understand the answer to your question.
Hint: "Cybrstooge" is not a "typo."
Oops, sorry, it is a non-member...has nothing to do with Cybrsage...no way anyone could ever think so...at least according to a forum mod.
Proof that a forum mod made such a statement?
Why assume the typos are even in reference to you? Think about it.
If folks want to denigrate some member named cybrstooge then what does that even have to do with you? You aren't cyberstooge, why assume every comment about that guy is a comment about you?
The part where you do it....why do you do it? Oh wait, you consider YOUR off topic, irrelevant posts to be not crapping, right?shira said:What part of "no quote-crapping" do you not understand?
You made the post.
The question mark (?; also known as an interrogation point, interrogation mark, question point, query or eroteme),[1] is a punctuation mark that replaces the full stop (period) at the end of an interrogative sentence in English and many other languages. The question mark is not used for indirect questions. The question mark character is also often used in place of missing or unknown data.
My post was a series of questions aimed at you, intending to have you generate a series of answers in response.
There was no statement contained in that post other than a request for you to "think about it".
I do understand that not everyone adheres to the same set of grammar rules, but in my case the punctuation I use in my posts is relevant.
Question Mark
I readily admit I coined "cybrstooge" as a direct reference to cybrsage; the fact that I edited the name in quotes of his posts makes it difficult (not to mention terribly dishonest) to pretend otherwise. I intended mild mockery, not a "direct, personal attack". If poor cybrsage is so thin-skinned as to take serious offense to that mild appellation, I must suggest that he is far too delicate to expose himself to the internet or any of the fora therein.
No sane person would have any question that when someone said Faux News they were altering the name of Fox News as an attack. Come on, do YOU even entertain the thought that this is not the case?No sane person would have any question as to that they were altering my screen name as a personal attack. Come on, do YOU even entertain the thought that this is not the case?
...logical fallacy in play...
If I used a logical fallacy, surely you can name what type of logical fallacy I used.Logical fallacy. Try again, this time without the logical fallacy.
As an aside, if there was not an actual site called faux news you would have some support for your position, even without the logical fallacy you are using, but since there IS one, you are wrong.
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.htmlIrrelevant Conclusion (Ignorantio Elenchi): This fallacy occurs when a rhetorician adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove a different conclusion. For example, when a particular proposal for housing legislation is under consideration, a legislator may argue that decent housing for all people is desirable. Everyone, presumably, will agree. However, the question at hand concerns a particular measure. The question really isn't, "Is it good to have decent housing?" The question really is, "Will this particular measure actually provide it or is there a better alternative?" This type of fallacy is a common one in student papers when students use a shared assumption--such as the fact that decent housing is a desirable thing to have--and then spend the bulk of their essays focused on that fact rather than the real question at issue.
Personal Attack(Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, "argument toward the man." Also called "Poisoning the Well"): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement "2+2=4" is true regardless if is stated by criminals, congressmen, or pastors.
The first logical fallacy you named there does not apply in any way to anything in my post and you will never be able to show that it does. Go ahead and try though.It depends on which you prefer, it is either a Ignorantio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion) or a Argumentum Ad Hominem (personal attack) or quite possibly both.
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
The first logical fallacy you named there does not apply in any way to anything in my post and you will never be able to show that it does. Go ahead and try though.
The second fallacy could very loosly apply to the 'No sane person' part of my post but there is nothing else in that post that could possibly be interpretted as a personal attack.
What you neglected to acknowledge is that part was your own wording. I was using your wording to illustrate your inconsistency. So when you used it, were you using a logical fallacy?
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.htmlThis sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because an action that is wrong is wrong even if another person would also do it.
This is a logical fallacy (fallacy of exclusion) and I will demonstrate it for you:Those who use logical fallacies usually claim they do not. You are one of those people who claim you do not use them.
This is a logical fallacy (straw man) and I will demonstrate it for you:Not neglecting it at all. It is a logical fallacy to say that it is ok to use a logical fallacy just because someone else is using one.
This is a conclusion you reached on the false premise that your 2 logical fallacies are true. Both are false so there is no support offered for your conclusion.EDIT: As an aside, I am also showing that it is impossible to moderate a forum for logical fallacies. Common-place arguments/discussions are chock full of them.
The first logical fallacy you named there does not apply in any way to anything in my post and you will never be able to show that it does. Go ahead and try though.
The second fallacy could very loosly apply to the 'No sane person' part of my post but there is nothing else in that post that could possibly be interpretted as a personal attack. What you neglected to acknowledge is that part was your own wording. I was using your wording to illustrate your inconsistency. So when you used it, were you using a logical fallacy?
Oh I know what I am dealing with, and I don't expect him to back down. I just enjoy highlighting it.Cybrsage continually rejects examples of his inconsistency. He continually uses a particular argument to support his position in one context, yet assails that equivalent argument when used by another against him in another context. And once backed into a corner on this, he will tell you the inconsistency is "apples and oranges." When then asked to show why it's apples and oranges, he evades by stating that the SPECIFIC USES of the two arguments were different.
For example, when you pointed out that he claimed he couldn't tell that "Faux News" was a commentary on "Fox News" yet could tell that "Cybrstooge" is a commentary on "Cybrsage," after you refute his claim that there's a logical fallacy behind your accusation, he'll eventually tell you that "Faux" is a different word than Cybrstooge."
Yes, really. That's the type of person you're dealing with here.
This is a logical fallacy (fallacy of exclusion) and I will demonstrate it for you:
This is a logical fallacy (straw man) and I will demonstrate it for you:
...lots of logical fallacies in use...
See, you proved my points nicely. Thank you for your assistance.
You also proved my points nicely, thank you very much.
I thought intentional misquoting is against the rules. Why hasn't cybrsage been banned? It seems overdue.
I thought intentional misquoting is against the rules. Why hasn't cybrsage been banned? It seems overdue.