Spearthrower wrote:It's a facade, underneath I am grumping.

You're stealing my schtick! I'm supposed to be the grumpy one.

Awww look, we got some Colonel Cathcart attention! We all got a black eye from Peter, and he got a feather in his cap!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... l#p2308093

Peter Brown wrote:

Looking around at this forum at present, I think this video is sorely needed.

and there was I thinking your posted video actually hit the intended target; all try watching it again maybe?

As Chairman Bill identified here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... l#p2311014

The only thing I want rid of is the mindless repetition of hackneyed phrases in place of reasoned, rational argument. I'd love to be rid of evidence-free assertions & opinions presented as if they were facts. And I'd love to be rid of misrepresentation and strawmanning.

There are 4 main devices the usual characters employ to undermine productive discourse.

1) Evidence-free assertions, usually supported when challenged with further evidence-free assertions
2) Opinions presented as facts - similar to 1, but with the claimant seeming to believe that the mere fact they can type a sentence makes it logically or empirically credible.
3) Misrepresenting - usually achieved by quote-mining from a prior post, and then wandering off into fantasy land about what that except means.
4) Strawmanning - a more pernicious form of 3, where people's positions are manufactured for them by someone else.

While I expect that most members are familiar with these devices and have means of dealing with them, other people seem to struggle and let these lead discussions off course. Perhaps some suggestions could be made in this thread for how to best deal with them.

Re: point 4, is especially heinous when said straw-manner has already been corrected on his fabrications multiple times in the past.
But everytime a particular topic comes up, said straw-manners will just regurgitate their straw-men at the same people, as if that counts as a rebuttal.

Spearthrower wrote: Perhaps some suggestions could be made in this thread for how to best deal with them.

Hot laser death has always worked for me, along with a smattering of ridicule.

I've never had any trouble arguing with you guys. Heh. Heh, see what happened there?

Spinozasgalt wrote:I've never had any trouble arguing with you guys. Heh. Heh, see what happened there?

Yep. An evidence-free assertion.

It's self-evident. Axiomatic. Duplicitous. Other words.

Spearthrower wrote:Looking around at this forum at present, I think this video is sorely needed. Something I am continuously surprised by here is that many new members, and disturbingly quite a few older ones, seem to have forgotten that most elementary quality of rational skepticism: supporting your claims.

It's easy to make assertions, and they're worth precisely as much as the effort it took to type them: bugger all.

If you can't cite something to support what you claim, then you need to learn to preface your sentences with a softener, like: 'I might be completely fucking wrong but, I think that....." rather than constructing sentences which indicate that your say so is the solitary authority on life, the universe, and fucking everything.

And if you think that continuing to offer further assertions to support your previous assertions is perfectly acceptable discourse, and that people have a cheek demanding your provide citations or sources, then you need to go and look up what rational skepticism means.

No doubt, you think you've worded this very cleverly, so that I am included in those assumed to make "unsupported assertions". The big problem with that is that, in my case, the "unsupported assertions" are not about science or politics, but about someone's posting history on this site - hardly a comparable issue.
No doubt, you will now say I am being "paranoid"! But the reference in this vague post about the "disturbingly quite a few older ones" will no doubt be understood by many as a reference to me, making the "science" of posting on this site somehow relevant. Rest assured, however, that I don't make scientific arguments that I cannot back up with citations.

It's scary how much you seem to think the world revolves around you DavidMcC.

DavidMcC wrote:No doubt, you think you've worded this very cleverly, so that I am included in those assumed to make "unsupported assertions". The big problem with that is that, in my case, the "unsupported assertions" are not about science or politics, but about someone's posting history on this site - hardly a comparable issue.
No doubt, you will now say I am being "paranoid"! But the reference in this vague post about the "disturbingly quite a few older ones" will no doubt be understood by many as a reference to me, making the "science" of posting on this site somehow relevant. Rest assured, however, that I don't make scientific arguments that I cannot back up with citations.

David, I've noted in the past how 'Not Everything Is About You!', and in this case it is precisely the same situation.

While I think your discursive malfeasance is plain to all, I can only assure you that (for some inexplicable reason) I hadn't actually thought of you at all when I wrote this thread.

But thanks for volunteering yourself!

In the future the experts might be wrong - so we can ignore what they say now if I happen to think differently.

Just throwing this in here, as an example of ass-holeness.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:It's scary how much you seem to think the world revolves around you DavidMcC.

I was expecting that someone was going to say that! It's the usual trick. That's why I mentioned the "clever wording", referencing my recent clashes in which others demanded links to posts which were quite old (and therefore difficult to find), but whose basic content had stuck in my mind.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:It's scary how much you seem to think the world revolves around you DavidMcC.

I was expecting that someone was going to say that! It's the usual trick. That's why I mentioned the "clever wording", referencing my recent clashes in which others demanded links to posts which were quite old (and therefore difficult to find), but whose basic content had stuck in my mind.

No Dave, it's not cleverly worded - scare quotes or not - to reference the latest black eye you've experienced in your ongoing Colonel Cathcart saga.

And if you're ONCE AGAIN bringing up your repeated accusations against me stating that I had argued ichthyosaurs were mammals, I'd suggest you just write to the mods and request a warning, as it will save everyone the time.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2263258

Blip wrote: this is a warning about your recent series of posts,... in which you repeatedly make a pejorative assertion about another member that he has repeatedly denied and for which you have failed to provide any substantiation.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:It's scary how much you seem to think the world revolves around you DavidMcC.

I was expecting that someone was going to say that! It's the usual trick. That's why I mentioned the "clever wording", referencing my recent clashes in which others demanded links to posts which were quite old (and therefore difficult to find), but whose basic content had stuck in my mind.

You mean posts that didn't exist, that somebody (yours truly) went through the threads in question meticulously, reading every single post, looking for these events you claimed transpired, and couldn't find a single instance, and then repeated the same exercise on three separate occasions (not a small task, given two threads that had run to some considerable length).

What you claim didn't fucking happen, and your repeated insistence that it did is sanctionable. So here it is: Find those posts and present them or shut your fucking cakehole. If those posts exist, it will take a mere few hours to find them. I know, because I've read both the threads in question multiple times. Considering the time and effort you've put into repeating these claims and attempting to defend them, this is a tiny effort. Do it or ram your assertions up your hairy fucking hoop where they came from.

Note: I don't want to get rid of you. Indeed, I couldn't give a flying fuck about you either way. I do, however, want to get rid of your repeated fabrications about what others have fucking said, because lies are not something I tolerate, and nor should you. Support your claims or fucking stow them.

Edit: typo

Spearthrower wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:It's scary how much you seem to think the world revolves around you DavidMcC.

I was expecting that someone was going to say that! It's the usual trick. That's why I mentioned the "clever wording", referencing my recent clashes in which others demanded links to posts which were quite old (and therefore difficult to find), but whose basic content had stuck in my mind.

No Dave, it's not cleverly worded - scare quotes or not - to reference the latest black eye you've experienced in your ongoing Colonel Cathcart saga.

Ha ha! It wasn't my "clever wording", but yours that I was referring to!

And if you're ONCE AGAIN bringing up your repeated accusations against me stating that I had argued ichthyosaurs were mammals, I'd suggest you just write to the mods and request a warning, as it will save everyone the time.

I thought I eventiually corrected myself, by replacing "ichthyosaurs" with "plesiosaurs". Or do you even deny calling plesiosaurs mammals when a scientific paper showing a fossilised pregnant plesiosaur was published?

DavidMcC wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:It's scary how much you seem to think the world revolves around you DavidMcC.

I was expecting that someone was going to say that! It's the usual trick. That's why I mentioned the "clever wording", referencing my recent clashes in which others demanded links to posts which were quite old (and therefore difficult to find), but whose basic content had stuck in my mind.

No Dave, it's not cleverly worded - scare quotes or not - to reference the latest black eye you've experienced in your ongoing Colonel Cathcart saga.

Ha ha! It wasn't my "clever wording", but yours that I was referring to!

Yesss Dave, I didn't say otherwise.

Allow me to help you parse...

I did not contrive a 'cleverly worded' way of referring to Something That Happened To DavidMcC.

Aside from the rampant egotism this represents, it's funny that you'd think I'd need to word it 'cleverly' as if I would have to step on egg-shells around such a point should I want to make it. If I had wanted to refer to you - which looking back now, I realise I did mistakenly absent you from my consideration in the writing of this thread - I would have simply done so, and you've provided ample posts with which to evidence this.

However, I didn't 'carefully word' it to avoid anything, let alone to attempt to implicate you. You never even crossed my mind. This is the usual state of affairs for me - I don't think of you at all, Dave.

DavidMcC wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:And if you're ONCE AGAIN bringing up your repeated accusations against me stating that I had argued ichthyosaurs were mammals, I'd suggest you just write to the mods and request a warning, as it will save everyone the time.

I thought I eventiually corrected myself, by replacing "ichthyosaurs" with "plesiosaurs". Or do you even deny calling plesiosaurs mammals when a scientific paper showing a fossilised pregnant plesiosaur was published?

Yes, I deny it. Yes, you're doing it again. Yes, i am going to report you for unless you scuttle back off somewhere and keep very, very quiet.

For everyone else, enjoy running a search on my posts with the term 'plesiosaur', 'plesiosaurs', 'plesiosauria', and laugh as you note that the only times I have ever mentioned this word on this forum is to deny Dave's claims that I had called them mammals!

Just now, I looked at the thread title and imagined a group of angry ventriloquists drawing faces on their arses.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:Just now, I looked at the thread title and imagined a group of angry ventriloquists drawing faces on their arses.

That does actually offer a very good segue into addressing what some people might otherwise have complained about.

The video actually explains why such people are not 'assholes' - he's clearly not calling the 14 year old girl at the beginning an asshole.

It also explains why arguing is the wrong methodology. There's little point in expecting to convince those types of people who thrive on the emotional drama they can instigate, and care very little for any content so long as it provokes the desired reactions. Instead of arguing, you just let them put themselves in self-defeating positions and watch them squirm - someone refusing to acknowledge their own mistakes undermines their efforts and credibility considerably. Even more so if it results in angry fireworks as they self-explode.

hackenslash wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:It's scary how much you seem to think the world revolves around you DavidMcC.

I was expecting that someone was going to say that! It's the usual trick. That's why I mentioned the "clever wording", referencing my recent clashes in which others demanded links to posts which were quite old (and therefore difficult to find), but whose basic content had stuck in my mind.

You mean posts that didn't exist, that somebody (yours truly) went through the threads in question meticulously, reading every single post, looking for these events you claimed transpired, and couldn't find a single instance, and then repeated the same exercise on three separate occasions (not a small task, given two threads that had run to some considerable length).

What you claim didn't fucking happen, and your repeated insistence that it did is sanctionable. So here it is: Find those posts and present them or shut your fucking cakehole. If those posts exist, it will take a mere few hours to find them. I know, because I've read both the threads in question multiple times. Considering the time and effort you've put into repeating these claims and attempting to defend them, this is a tiny effort. Do it or ram your assertions up your hairy fucking hoop where they came from.

Note: I don't want to get rid of you. Indeed, I couldn't give a flying fuck about you either way. I do, however, want to get rid of your repeated fabrications about what others have fucking said, because lies are not something I tolerate, and nor should you. Support your claims or fucking stow them.

Edit: typo

Oh!! Looks like Dave's done exactly the same thing to you! Well I never! Who woulda thunk it?