Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count is now an amazing 19!

From: Andrew McDonagh <news_at_andmc.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:39:55 +0100
Message-ID: <e86fi0$np9$1@news.freedom2surf.net>

Bob Badour wrote:
> Michael Gaab wrote:
>

>> "Keith H Duggar" <duggar_at_alum.mit.edu> wrote in message 
>> news:1151745359.987862.87340_at_m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Robert Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please notice how the use of insults diverts the topic
>>>> from the real issues to the insults themselves. I suggest
>>>> that this simply confirms what a waste the use of insults
>>>> truly is.
>>
>> Amen.
>>
>>
>>> We have been over this before. They are diverting only for
>>> those unable to maintain mental focus on logical content. If
>>> you feel insulted why not simply ignore the putative insults?
>>> Why falsely claim insults that are not part of the argument
>>> are ad hominem?
>>
>> Please not that one again.
>>
>>
>>> Why not follow the advice I gave: focus on
>>> logic /both/ when sending /and/ receiving?
>>
>> The insults reduce the effectiveness of the arguer. They reduce
>> the arguer's credibility regardless of  how well the argument is
>> presented.

>
> Since the insults either accompany or follow a substantive argument,
> they only reduce credibility among those too ignorant or too stupid to
> recognize substance.

Ooohh.... so close to his favorite phrase....

>
>

>> If I had a vote I would filter posts with insults as a first resort and
>> if need be the poster themselves until they got their act together.

>
> As it happens, you have the only vote when it comes to filtering what
> you read. Filter away. If you filter the wrong content, it's your loss,
> and nobody is harmed but you.
>
> In contexts where third-party filtering is available, no insults are
> required to address self-aggrandizing ignorants, cranks and trolls. In
> effect, this is exactly what peer review attempts to achieve.

BINGO! count = 18....

>
>

>> This is no place for insults. It is a forumn where all
>> can learn regardless of there experience, background or
>> IQ.

>
> I disagree. The first prerequisite for learning is intellectual honesty.
> The snake-oil salesmen have a commercial incentive to maintain their
> ignorance or at least their outward appearance of ignorance regardless
> of any information they receive. Had they any intellectual honesty, they
> would never have become snake-oil salesmen in the first place.
>
> Snake-oil salesmen appeal to anti-intellectualism, which is part of what
> makes them so appealing to North Americans.
>
> Similar arguments regarding intellectual honesty apply to all other
> forms of self-aggrandizing ignorants. Cranks are psychotic. While their

FULL HOUSE BINGO!!! Count = 19

> intellectual dishonesty might be pathological and originate in physical
> defect or injury, they nevertheless lack intellectual honesty in the
> most profound way: their brains refuse to acknowledge what their senses
> experience.
>
> Trolls feign similar psychosis. etc.
Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 13:39:55 CDT