Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count is now an amazing 19!
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:39:55 +0100
>> "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
> Trolls feign similar psychosis. etc.
Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 20:39:55 CEST