Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
The Ad Hominem
    #839658 -

This tactic fortunately is used by only a few weak-minded, immature individuals here. These posters:

1. Violate the communal spirit.

2. Are unable to provide a logical counter point.

3. Have little ability to think or reason.

4. Have zero self-control and are subject to their emotional whims.

5. Are basically cowards, as they say something hiding faceless behind their computers, that they wouldn't have the courage to say to someone in person.



--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Swami]
    #839709 -

There are two classes of ad hominem attack, one is valid and the other is not.

The valid one can occur in different settings. For example, if the setting is a legal courtroom the allocation of liar is certainly appropriate. On the other hand to malign a person's character in this setting might be inappropriate.

For the most part I agree with you. There is a certain amount of implicit decorum in a forum like this. Not only do personal attacks affect the content/substance ratio it often times derails a perfectly good thread while stirring up emotions that override a person's judgment. If people become overly wrought they are less apt to think clearly.

Cool heads think betterer.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Swami]
    #839716 -

This tactic fortunately is used by only a few weak-minded, immature individuals here

Such as yourself.

I guess this thread is all because I asked you to explain what a "short circuit" of the brain was right? Did it hurt that much? Couldn't you just have been man enough to say "Sorry, I don't know, it's a meaningless term and I understand that now". I'd have just said "That's ok" and left it at that. No need to start waste of time threads about these mysterious un-named "posters" because you don't have the honesty to use my name.

Please stop wasting bandwidth with your childish insults. They are extremely tiresome and of no interest to anyone, least of all me. If you feel threatened by my posts try and respond intellectually instead of with insults.

btw, was number 5 implying that you would "beat me up" if we were face to face? How very communally spirited of you. Clearly you have the kind of spiritual nature we should all emulate.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Edited by Alex123 (08/24/02 03:49 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #839740 -

I am curious.

Why do you find such replies to be necessary?

Are you feeling threatened? You make some interesting points at times but these kinds of responses from you leave me puzzled.

Did it occur to you that anyone's perception is a subjective matter? Even my interpretation of your remarks carries that distinction with it.

Again, why are these kinds of replies necessary?

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #839750 -

I think the question is more "was this entire thread necessary" and why swami feels the need to make these kinds of posts. Remember, he started the thread not me. Perhaps you could address the question to him?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #839759 -

You are dodging the question. At this moment I am more interested in why you make such remarks. As is obvious there is no requirement that you answer the question but dodging it leaves me to ponder the answer without enough evidence to form a conclusion. There are mysteries I cannot fathom. This is but one.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #839900 -

Well, you see the problem i have taking you seriously on this Mr Mush. When swami or sclorch do exactly the same thing you never dream to ask them why they are doing it. You only feel the need to do that when I do it (in my gentler and more humourous fashion). Perhaps if you could ask a few questions of sclorch and swami I could attach more weight to your questions. Until then you can understand my doubts about how genuine you are on this.

Cheers.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #839911 -

btw, was number 5 implying that you would "beat me up" if we were face to face?

There was no mention of you, nor any threat, real or implied. Where do you come up with this paranoia?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #839916 -

Such as yourself.

I guess this thread is all because I asked you to explain what a "short circuit" of the brain was right? Did it hurt that much? Couldn't you just have been man enough to say "Sorry, I don't know, it's a meaningless term and I understand that now". I'd have just said "That's ok" and left it at that. No need to start waste of time threads about these mysterious un-named "posters" because you don't have the honesty to use my name.

Please stop wasting bandwidth with your childish insults. They are extremely tiresome and of no interest to anyone, least of all me. If you feel threatened by my posts try and respond intellectually instead of with insults.

btw, was number 5 implying that you would "beat me up" if we were face to face? How very communally spirited of you. Clearly you have the kind of spiritual nature we should all emulate.

"... a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
-- Shakespeare



Edited by Evolving (08/24/02 06:15 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Swami]
    #839920 -

There was no mention of you, nor any threat, real or implied. Where do you come up with this paranoia?

Care to name the mysterious "posters" you had in mind then? Or are you too lilly-livered to even do that?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #839929 -

"Like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Get it right you silly old fart. "Like a tale". It sounds like you paid as much attention to shakespeare as you did to spirituality.

The qoute is actually "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." - (Macbeth Act V, Scene V).

Stick to looking at those spoons in Burger King.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Edited by Alex123 (08/24/02 06:16 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #839944 -

Alex, you seem to have some issue with aggression, I suggest that you get it touch with your feminine side. By this I do not mean pulling on a penis the size of a clitoris.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #839947 -

No aggression son. I'm relaxed and laughing my ass off.

Cheers.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Swami]
    #839960 -

"...relax Donnie, these men are cowards."


--------------------
"New shit has come to light..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: GRTUD]
    #840283 -

"..how about we let this thread die now?"
-me


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #840445 -

Get it right you silly old fart... Stick to looking at those spoons in Burger King.
Alex I want to thank you for correcting me, sometimes quoting from memory can be inaccurate.

Reading a post of yours is like reading "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (Macbeth Act V, Scene V).

Happy now? Keep licking those spoons of Gerber, if you scream loud enough maybe mommy will change your Huggies...

Edited by Evolving (08/24/02 11:27 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Swami]
    #840515 -

Energy cannot be destroyed, only converted to matter, and vice versa.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #840522 -

In reply to:
Alex, you seem to have some issue with aggression, I suggest that you get it touch with your feminine side. By this I do not mean pulling on a penis the size of a clitoris.




lmao. Nice one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #840923 -

I guess this thread is all because I asked you to explain what a "short circuit" of the brain was right? Did it hurt that much?

According to my definition(actually Webster's) of ad hominem, "did it hurt that much?" could be classified as an example, thus, according to your contention["such as yourself"], would put in the a same category as Swami.(The horror, the horror!).

btw, was number 5 implying that you would "beat me up" if we were face to face? How very communally spirited of you. Clearly you have the kind of spiritual nature we should all emulate.

I may be wrong, but I don't think I'm alone here when I say it's much easier[for some] to speak your mind freely over the internet than it is face to face. And it has nothing to do with getting your ass kicked, instead some people find security and comfort in the distance the internet provides you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #841329 -

if you scream loud enough maybe mommy will change your Huggies...

Is all this hysteria because I pointed out that all the evidence shows you were wrong about humans making war for their entire 2 million year history? I didn't see a reply to that and thought you'd accepted it. Looks like it's been festering within you...

Keep your tongue wedged up swamis ass, he needs all the help he can get.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #841419 -

Is all this hysteria because I pointed out that all the evidence shows you were wrong about humans making war for their entire 2 million year history? I didn't see a reply to that and thought you'd accepted it. Looks like it's been festering within you...

Keep your tongue wedged up swamis ass, he needs all the help he can get.

The hysteria is in your mind, you have no evidence of anything except the bitter taste of bile which you incessantly regurgitate whenever you make a post. Your words read like those of a lonely wounded child who must attempt to bring down others in order that he may feel elevated.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #841479 -

I think it's more the other way around. I wasn't even talking to you when your slavish devotion to swami compelled you to butt in with unpleasant and childish remarks. Perhaps you could try and be a man and stand on your own two feet and let swami look after himself.

Cheers.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Edited by Alex123 (08/24/02 11:12 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #841494 -

...your slavish devotion to swami compelled you to butt in with unpleasant and childish remarks. Perhaps you could try and be a man and stand on your own two feet and let swami look after himself.


Your slavish devotion to vulgarity is bringing the tone of this board down further than Swami has ever taken it on his worst day. Your adolescent obsession with attempting to denigrate Swami has brought you down to a lower level than your perception of him. My eight year old is more well mannered than you, and my three year old is on par with your social development. Perhaps you should rethink your tactics. Kindergarten school yard taunts should be replaced with intellectual discourse. I would suggest that you take a cue from Mr_Mushrooms on how to conduct yourself on a higher level.

Edited by Evolving (08/24/02 11:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #841496 -

LOL


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #841550 -

a flicker of light from somewhere within
something makes me want to be better than you
why cant i be better
why do i feel this
is my self made up of simple formulas
'the last word'
this equation i have to complete
ugly i run the race
when i win it will be perfect
i have to finish it
what would i have without the trophy
id have me.
a click of the mouse, the computer blinks off
and the boy goes outside
and opens his eyes


blargh

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #841658 -

Your adolescent obsession with attempting to denigrate Swami has brought you down to a lower level than your perception of him

Can you get really get lower than swami writing "ha hahaha hehehehe" when sclorch called me a "cocksucker" and sent me personal insults by PM? Is this the kind of social behaviour you want your children to emulate?

Your protestations might carry some weight if you were also protesting against sclorch and swami's "cocksucker" insults. Until you do, you expose yourself for what you clearly are. Some little sidekick of swami upset at seeing their hero taken down a peg or two.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #842519 -

I never sent you any insults via PM (forward it to everyone if I did).

I believe it was something more like this:

Subject: What's your problem?
Body: Well???

To which you never responded.

This is the case:
If you argue and rankle and contradict, you may achieve a temporary victory- sometimes; but it will be an empty victory because you will never get your opponent's good will. -Benjamin Franklin


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Sclorch]
    #842525 -

I miss you guys, but I shall return!

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #842582 -

Can you get really get lower than swami writing "ha hahaha hehehehe" when sclorch called me a "cocksucker" and sent me personal insults by PM? Is this the kind of social behaviour you want your children to emulate?

Your protestations might carry some weight if you were also protesting against sclorch and swami's "cocksucker" insults. Until you do, you expose yourself for what you clearly are. Some little sidekick of swami upset at seeing their hero taken down a peg or two.

This is the primary part of your exchange where the term "cocksucker" was brought up...

Alex123 (Re: Thought Loops):
Oh diddums you sound upset. I presume all your pathetic insults are ok are they? How about sclorch calling me a "cocksucker" and sending me insults by PM? I didn't hear you whining then.

Swami (Re: Thought Loops):
How about sclorch calling me a "cocksucker" and sending me insults by PM?
Ha ha ha ha he heh heh ho ho ha! Stop it! You are killing me! Stop! Ho ho ha ha he he he! Gee, now why did it not occur to me to get Thor to let me read your private mail?

So, you stated, '...sclorch called me a "cocksucker" and sent me personal insults by PM?' (emphasis added to word 'and') I did a search of all posts in the Spirituality and Philosophy forum and could not find where this epithet was used by Sclorch. Swami interpreted your statements as meaning that the insult was sent via PM, his reply was based on the absurd notion that he should somehow be able to divine the content of PMs exchanged between Sclorch and you. Swami is not responsible for the content of any PMs sent by any other members and he only has your dubious word to go on that you received such an insult from Sclorch via PM. Now if in fact Sclorch used this term, that is a matter between you and him, it is irrational to implicate Swami, myself or any other members in this particular alleged episode.

I will tell you something that I tell my children, two wrongs don't make a right. If Swami's behavior is so reprehensible, why do you bring yourself down below his level by incessant name calling and personal insults? (Swami refrains from name calling but does give people grief over their beliefs) To your disservice, you paint yourself as a petty, vindictive and vulgar individual. My suggestion is, show yourself to be a better person than those who you think are less 'enlightened' and offer rational, enlightened refutations of their positions sans the school yard insults. It is possible to highlight your disagreement with a person's manner and tone of communication without turning every thread into an endless diatribe that ruins the spirit of intellectual discourse.

In conclusion, in attempting to stop Swami from ruining threads, you are ruining threads. How is this productive? As the saying goes, 'The Operation was a Success, But the Patient Died'

Is that as clear as mud, or should I attempt further obfuscation?

Edited by Evolving (08/25/02 05:08 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #842844 -

I think that sums it up quite nicely. Let's all interact in peace and harmony now.
Ommmmmmmm

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #842934 -

I did a search of all posts in the Spirituality and Philosophy forum and could not find where this epithet was used by Sclorch.

You're right! Looks like sclorch was so embarrassed he went back and deleted the post! That's the best laugh I've had all day

Calls someone a cocksucker and then doesn't even have the courage to leave the post up! Think that shows the level of debate sclorch enjoys.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #842939 -

In conclusion, in attempting to stop Swami from ruining threads, you are ruining threads. How is this productive?

So I should just let swami ruin any threads he wants and drive away anyone he doesn't agree with? How is this productive?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #842964 -

I've deleted no post.
Must've been some lone moderator on the grassy knoll...

I still think you can be a [DELETED for the protection of Alex123's ego].


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Sclorch]
    #842971 -

Not too sure I believe you sclorch


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #842975 -

Shroomism writes:

Let's all interact in peace and harmony now.

An unlikely outcome, in this thread at least.

I just re-read the rules for posting in this forum. Why wasn't this thread locked twenty posts ago?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #842987 -

So I should just let swami ruin any threads he wants and drive away anyone he doesn't agree with?
I didn't state that. If there is something that you find objectionable in his tone or manner, you can state so in a forceful and direct manner without making it sound petty. Isn't there a more enlightened way to deal with what you perceive as ignorance or mean spiritedness on the part of another? I'm sure that you can find it. It is possible to dissect a person's reasoning to show that it is invalid, without attacking the individual. Don't you have it within you to use cold hard logic and meet him on his own terms? He has and will acknowledge when someone shows him that he is in error.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #843006 -

When in Rome...


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: ]
    #843164 -

No apology for implying i was lying about sclorch calling me a "cocksucker" I see. Not even when sclorch has admitted it himself.

I think it's clear who the petty one is.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Ad Hominem [Re: Xlea321]
    #843244 -

Let's all go pick some flowers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* crossing the emotional/personal/ad hominem line in debate Malachi 448 3 06/24/03 02:48 PM
by Malachi
* shakespeare smoked cannabis??? TheProphet 1,090 12 10/13/05 09:37 PM
by absolute zero
* You are at your best when you are simply yourself - is this an insult?
( 1 2 all )		 kaniz 2,159 21 01/18/06 05:52 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* arguementum ad numerum SpecialEd 708 5 01/04/04 06:44 PM
by Frog
* How NOT To Talk!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 trendalM 10,901 136 01/09/05 06:11 PM
by Rose
* How Not To Talk trendalM 942 2 01/11/05 06:08 PM
by trendal
* Objectivism?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 WhiteRabbitt 5,730 65 12/14/04 03:40 PM
by Phred
* Philosophical Fallacies spud 3,043 16 05/13/04 02:12 AM
by Jellric

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,731 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.