Thought we could in the SF all, myself included, learn from this hierarchy of disagreement when addressing ideas we disagree with:
1). Refuting the Central Point Explicitly refuting the central point
2). Refutation Finding the mistake and explaining why it's mistaken, using quotes
3). Counterargument Contradicting and then backing up with reasoning and supported evidence
4). Contradiction Stating the opposite case with little or no supporting evidence
5). Responding to Tone Criticizing the tone of the argument without addressing the substance.
6). Ad Hominem Attacking the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing
The substance.
7). Name Calling Sounds something like: you're an ass hat.
Originally posted by Pianoman1 Thought we could in the SF all, myself included, learn from this hierarchy of disagreement when addressing ideas we disagree with:
1). [b]Refuting the Central Point Explicitly refuting the central point
2). Refutation Finding the mistake and explaining why it's mistaken, using quotes
3). Counterargument Contradicti ...[text shortened]... g
The substance.
7). Name Calling Sounds something like: you're an ass hat.[/b]
Complete rubbish; what would a half-brain like you know about it anyway.
Originally posted by divegeester Complete rubbish; what would a half-brain like you know about it anyway.
Oh dear, Number 7 - proves my point,really. The more half-witted amongst grapple with the complexities of the lower echelons of the discussion hierarchy, leaving the mysteries of the upper echelons to cultivated reason and logic. Get a grip, divegeester, and refrain from commenting if you have nothing intelligent to say - and judging by previous comments of yours in other threads I am appalled by the level of ignorance you display in most matters under discussion. Appalled, but not surprised. Oh dear, you have dragged me down to your level. Guilty of number 6.
Tell you what. I am feeling generous. Try and refute it using reason.
Originally posted by Rank outsider Well, it wasn't a joke because it doesn't it doesn't have a punchline. You were wrong in assuming that, because it is 'somewhat funny', it is a joke.
So I think it was an amusing post, but not a joke (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke)
And you undermine your case by using that sneering tone, but that is not surprising from someone like you, you humourless troll.
😉
you are clearly wrong because i don't like the tone of your post. it speaks volumes about how you are never correct on these forums, you english pig-dog. now go away or i shall taunt you a second time.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi you are clearly wrong because i don't like the tone of your post. it speaks volumes about how you are never correct on these forums, you english pig-dog. now go away or i shall taunt you a second time.
This one is pretty funny to me. I liked that part about the english pig-dog.
Originally posted by Pianoman1 Thought we could in the SF all, myself included, learn from this hierarchy of disagreement when addressing ideas we disagree with:
1). [b]Refuting the Central Point Explicitly refuting the central point
2). Refutation Finding the mistake and explaining why it's mistaken, using quotes
3). Counterargument Contradicti ...[text shortened]... g
The substance.
7). Name Calling Sounds something like: you're an ass hat.[/b]
We can't all learn things in Spirituality, since some of us have learning disabilities. (1)
This is a common error. As Dr. Norman B. Smart explains, "some forms of disagreement are tied in importance." (2)
If we could all learn things, some of the ignoramuses on evolution would have figured it out by now. (3)
But the bottom line is that it's simply not true. (4)
Condescending much?! (5)
Besides, I hardly think you are qualified to assert that. (6)
Originally posted by Pianoman1 Oh dear, Number 7 - proves my point,really. The more half-witted amongst grapple with the complexities of the lower echelons of the discussion hierarchy, leaving the mysteries of the upper echelons to cultivated reason and logic. Get a grip, divegeester, and refrain from commenting if you have nothing intelligent to say - and judging by previous comments o ...[text shortened]... el. Guilty of number 6.
Tell you what. I am feeling generous. Try and refute it using reason.
Hierarchy of Disagreement
08 Nov '13 07:091 edit
YouTube
Back to Top