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.
-Removed-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 ZahlanziWell, 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.
it would have been funnier if you managed to go through all his points.
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.
😉
Originally posted by Rank outsideryou 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.
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.
😉
"Thought we could in the SF all, myself included, learn from this hierarchy of disagreement when addressing ideas we disagree with...."
God is; always was; and always will be.....
There's an idea many disagree with, citing various rationales: do you agree [with me] that many disagree with this idea?
Originally posted by ZahlanziThis one is pretty funny to me. I liked that part about the english pig-dog.
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.
The Instructor
Originally posted by Pianoman1We can't all learn things in Spirituality, since some of us have learning disabilities. (1)
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]
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)
Get out of here, you putrid sack of crap! (7)
Originally posted by SwissGambit......... nice.
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 i ...[text shortened]... nk you are qualified to assert that. (6)
Get out of here, you putrid sack of crap! (7)