When do you admit to being wrong?

[Funkyterrance]

I hate to mar the serenity of that last post but can we please lock this thread right here and witness "the perfect ending"? I will gladly delete this post if my wish is granted.

ah, if only I could do that in real life, freeze time before I stick my foot in my mouth... alas, for I was seemingly born with foot-in-mouth disease...

aaanyway, I'm not quite sure how my name got drug into this but ok, I'm game
for starters: funky, you're being a little too broad with the term 'ad hominem'.
from dictionary.com
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
basically my problem with your usage is this: attacks on ones character are not ad hominem when they are not used in lieu of a proper response to an argument... it's just mudslinging at that point

again as to hypocracy: about half the times in this thread (rounding down because I'm attempting to be neutral) you accuse woodruff of ad hominem (not a few times incorrectly) you then deride his character instead of countering his claim: the very definition of ad hominem

lastly

For the record, I've never heard Woodruff admit he was wrong. If cornered, he resorts to either redirecting the conversation or lashing out.

Eat it, bitch (this isn't even close to an exhaustive search):
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=128387&p=2815913&hilit=mistake#p2815913
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=88440&p=2056340&hilit=mistake#p2056340
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=174761&p=3820159&hilit=mistake#p3820159
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=174431&p=3812408&hilit=mistake#p3812408
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177416&p=3908986&hilit=mistake#p3908986
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=634&t=82967&p=1969467&hilit=mistake#p1969467
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=121462&p=2678383&hilit=mistake#p2678383
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114367&p=2545658&hilit=mistake#p2545658
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114332&p=2539502&hilit=mistake#p2539502
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=108610&p=2518471&hilit=mistake#p2518471
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=495&t=89466&p=2071208&hilit=mistake#p2071208
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82952&p=1982737&hilit=mistaken#p1982737
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=116246&p=2570874&hilit=mistake#p2570874

Why woodruff, I should wash your filthy mouth out with soap!

To be accurate the links provided seem to be examples of you admitting to making mistakes, not being wrong. Being one who delights in arguing semantics you should be able to appreciate this distinction. Looks like its you who gets to "eat it" this time.

Show me some examples of you admitting that you were seeing an issue solely from your own side, talking out of your ass and were proven wrong, end of discussion. If you can do this,you may find me admitting to being wrong about you. Until then, I stand by my judgement.

this isn't semantics, it's sophistry... he specifically went out of his way to prove he was mistaken... I challenge you to do the same

I realize that attempting to use mainly logic in my discussions leaves me quite vulnerable. I consider my Ad Hominem attacks at woodruff to be of a milder nature, if Ad Hominem at all, in that I am simply trying to discredit his methods, not his person. If he would play but the "rules" I would have no reason to even enter that realm. I consider these retorts of mine more "asides" than actual parts of the argument but perhaps its not viewed this way by all involved?
As far as those who seem gleeful at the fact that it may have looked like I outright contradicted myself or was misusing a term well, there is a reason I don't take the time to respond to their posts as much as I do to ones such as this. They simply are not sporting enough. I delight in the fact that you, faded, have the ability to throw me a curve. There was a time where these forums had several people could have that affect but sadly they have moved on.
You must know that I will not resort to Ad hominem attacks if you don't go down that road first. And if I do, call me out on it and I'll apologize.
As far as Woodruff's idea of the meaning of the word "wrong" not being a question of semantics I am still baffled. I may have used sophistry to get to the bottom of things but only as a tool for redirection, nothing more. I wasn't about to go off on a tangent about it.

[Funkyterrance]

Ad Hominem

If you had actually thought of it yourself it would have maybe been clever. A "me too" vote doesn't get you any more credibility Haggis.

now THAT is ad hominem, good job!

Damn straight. He's not even arguing anything though, so can it even be Ad Hominem? Trolling a troll is a whole different ball game.

[Woodruff]

I hate to mar the serenity of that last post but can we please lock this thread right here and witness "the perfect ending"? I will gladly delete this post if my wish is granted.

ah, if only I could do that in real life, freeze time before I stick my foot in my mouth... alas, for I was seemingly born with foot-in-mouth disease...

aaanyway, I'm not quite sure how my name got drug into this but ok, I'm game
for starters: funky, you're being a little too broad with the term 'ad hominem'.
from dictionary.com
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
basically my problem with your usage is this: attacks on ones character are not ad hominem when they are not used in lieu of a proper response to an argument... it's just mudslinging at that point

again as to hypocracy: about half the times in this thread (rounding down because I'm attempting to be neutral) you accuse woodruff of ad hominem (not a few times incorrectly) you then deride his character instead of countering his claim: the very definition of ad hominem

lastly

For the record, I've never heard Woodruff admit he was wrong. If cornered, he resorts to either redirecting the conversation or lashing out.

Eat it, bitch (this isn't even close to an exhaustive search):
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=128387&p=2815913&hilit=mistake#p2815913
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=88440&p=2056340&hilit=mistake#p2056340
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=174761&p=3820159&hilit=mistake#p3820159
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=174431&p=3812408&hilit=mistake#p3812408
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177416&p=3908986&hilit=mistake#p3908986
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=634&t=82967&p=1969467&hilit=mistake#p1969467
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=121462&p=2678383&hilit=mistake#p2678383
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114367&p=2545658&hilit=mistake#p2545658
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114332&p=2539502&hilit=mistake#p2539502
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=108610&p=2518471&hilit=mistake#p2518471
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=495&t=89466&p=2071208&hilit=mistake#p2071208
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82952&p=1982737&hilit=mistaken#p1982737
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=116246&p=2570874&hilit=mistake#p2570874

Why woodruff, I should wash your filthy mouth out with soap!

To be accurate the links provided seem to be examples of you admitting to making mistakes, not being wrong. Being one who delights in arguing semantics you should be able to appreciate this distinction. Looks like its you who gets to "eat it" this time.

Show me some examples of you admitting that you were seeing an issue solely from your own side, talking out of your ass and were proven wrong, end of discussion. If you can do this,you may find me admitting to being wrong about you. Until then, I stand by my judgement.

this isn't semantics, it's sophistry... he specifically went out of his way to prove he was mistaken... I challenge you to do the same

I realize that attempting to use mainly logic in my discussions leaves me quite vulnerable. I consider my Ad Hominem attacks at woodruff to be of a milder nature, if Ad Hominem at all, in that I am simply trying to discredit his methods, not his person. If he would play but the "rules" I would have no reason to even enter that realm. I consider these retorts of mine more "asides" than actual parts of the argument but perhaps its not viewed this way by all involved?
As far as those who seem gleeful at the fact that it may have looked like I outright contradicted myself or was misusing a term well, there is a reason I don't take the time to respond to their posts as much as I do to ones such as this. They simply are not sporting enough. I delight in the fact that you, faded, have the ability to throw me a curve. There was a time where these forums had several people could have that affect but sadly they have moved on.
You must know that I will not resort to Ad hominem attacks if you don't go down that road first. And if I do, call me out on it and I'll apologize.
As far as Woodruff's idea of the meaning of the word "wrong" not being a question of semantics I am still baffled. I may have used sophistry to get to the bottom of things but only as a tool for redirection, nothing more. I wasn't about to go off on a tangent about it.

Interesting how you responded to fadedpsychosis' post with "much ado about nothing" while avoiding his challenge.

[Funkyterrance]

Interesting how you responded to fadedpsychosis' post with "much ado about nothing" while avoiding his challenge.

I don't have them on file, woodruff, but I'll work on it. These things take time. I'm sorry if you viewed my post as "much ado about nothing", it was meant to be viewed as a clarification of sorts.

[Funkyterrance]

I am also going to take this opportunity to say that I was wrong for not giving credit to woodruff for listing all the incidences where he was mistaken. I am sure this took a good amount of time and effort and it was rude of me to discount the fact that he was legitimately making an effort to provide actual proof to support his position.
Otherwise, I would still like to delve further into the subject with the latest objections.

[MeDeFe]

Ad Hominem

If you had actually thought of it yourself it would have maybe been clever. A "me too" vote doesn't get you any more credibility Haggis.

Three people telling you that you might want to consider whether you've fully grasped the concept of "ad hominem" should get you thinking, though. Just as a suggestion...

[Phatscotty]

This really should have cleared it up....

ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument

[Funkyterrance]

This really should have cleared it up....

ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument

Thank you, Scotty. This is at the core of the issue.

Three people telling you that you might want to consider whether you've fully grasped the concept of "ad hominem" should get you thinking, though. Just as a suggestion...

Yes but I don't consider "me too" votes/trolls. I think I am owed an actual explanation to the accusation by all of those claiming it. Haggis's arguments don't hold water as it stands. Faded's comment did get me thinking, hence my latest responses.

[fadedpsychosis]

(deleting the requote of myself because let's face it, there's enough of me talking on here)

I realize that attempting to use mainly logic in my discussions leaves me quite vulnerable. I consider my Ad Hominem attacks at woodruff to be of a milder nature, if Ad Hominem at all, in that I am simply trying to discredit his methods, not his person. If he would play but the "rules" I would have no reason to even enter that realm. I consider these retorts of mine more "asides" than actual parts of the argument but perhaps its not viewed this way by all involved?

I don't mind logic at all, and in fact encourage it; it's faulty logic (the most common in this forum obviously being that which it is named for) that I dislike. As for snide asides and character attacks... I've used such myself obviously when the mood suited me, but if you try to keep them from interfering with the point of the discussion I will try to do the same (keep in mind, I'll still take pot shots if they're called for, and I expect you'll do the same)

As far as those who seem gleeful at the fact that it may have looked like I outright contradicted myself or was misusing a term well, there is a reason I don't take the time to respond to their posts as much as I do to ones such as this. They simply are not sporting enough. I delight in the fact that you, faded, have the ability to throw me a curve. There was a time where these forums had several people could have that affect but sadly they have moved on.

"One is glad to be of service."

You must know that I will not resort to Ad hominem attacks if you don't go down that road first. And if I do, call me out on it and I'll apologize.

I shall endeavor to keep my attacks on your person separate from the discussion at hand (see above).

As far as Woodruff's idea of the meaning of the word "wrong" not being a question of semantics I am still baffled. I may have used sophistry to get to the bottom of things but only as a tool for redirection, nothing more. I wasn't about to go off on a tangent about it.

the involuted circles of your discussion with woodruff have started making my eyes cross quite frankly, so I'm just going to leave this one alone now... I've enough complications in my life without sorting out who-said-what-meaning-what-to-who especially since I almost need a spreadsheet to keep track of it anymore

[Phatscotty]

both of you guys are going to do just fine...

[Phatscotty]

Is Glenn Beck a Community member now? Kind of a sign that the right wing media has gone a little crazy on this case? No? i mean, we're talking about a guy who was fired from Fox news, which we can accept as being right-wing, right? And he was fired for being too extreme. By Fox.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169043&start=30&hilit=glenn+beck+fired&p=3691197&view=show#p3691197




whenever you get around to it Symm...you have some admitting to do. He was not fired.

[jonesthecurl]

this isn't semantics, it's sophistry... he specifically went out of his way to prove he was mistaken... I challenge you to do the same

Let me get this right....He went out of his way to prove that he was wrong, in order to show that funky was wrong about him never admitting to be wrong ...................................................................It's too early in the day for this kind of shit!

No it's not.

[notyou2]

this isn't semantics, it's sophistry... he specifically went out of his way to prove he was mistaken... I challenge you to do the same

Let me get this right....He went out of his way to prove that he was wrong, in order to show that funky was wrong about him never admitting to be wrong ...................................................................It's too early in the day for this kind of shit!

No it's not.

Prove it.

[/]

On matters of opinion, of course, I am never wrong. Only on matters of fact from time to time.

I suppose opinions are subjective enough that one may never be wrong. I feel that my own opinions are sometimes wrong though, just today I admitted to being wrong about olives not being tasty on pizzas.

[Funkyterrance]

On matters of opinion, of course, I am never wrong. Only on matters of fact from time to time.

I suppose opinions are subjective enough that one may never be wrong. I feel that my own opinions are sometimes wrong though, just today I admitted to being wrong about olives not being tasty on pizzas.

That's awesome.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Ad Hominem

If you had actually thought of it yourself it would have maybe been clever. A "me too" vote doesn't get you any more credibility Haggis.

I thought we already established that I only skim discussions you're part off.

Anyway, I guess someone already pointed out to you that ad hominem is not the same as name calling?

[Funkyterrance]

Anyway, I guess someone already pointed out to you that ad hominem is not the same as name calling?

It can be, depends on the name.

[jonesthecurl]

this isn't semantics, it's sophistry... he specifically went out of his way to prove he was mistaken... I challenge you to do the same

Let me get this right....He went out of his way to prove that he was wrong, in order to show that funky was wrong about him never admitting to be wrong ...................................................................It's too early in the day for this kind of shit!

No it's not.

Prove it.

[points at clock].

[fadedpsychosis]

this isn't semantics, it's sophistry... he specifically went out of his way to prove he was mistaken... I challenge you to do the same

Let me get this right....He went out of his way to prove that he was wrong, in order to show that funky was wrong about him never admitting to be wrong ...................................................................It's too early in the day for this kind of shit!

No it's not.

Prove it.

[points at clock].

ah, but I guarantee my clock says it's much later than your clock... therefore time in this case is subjective

[Funkyterrance]

ah, but I guarantee my clock says it's much later than your clock... therefore time in this case is subjective

Not only subjective but irrelevant.

[fadedpsychosis]

ah, but I guarantee my clock says it's much later than your clock... therefore time in this case is subjective

Not only subjective but irrelevant.

hey hey, one fallacy at a time

[Gillipig]

this isn't semantics, it's sophistry... he specifically went out of his way to prove he was mistaken... I challenge you to do the same

Let me get this right....He went out of his way to prove that he was wrong, in order to show that funky was wrong about him never admitting to be wrong ...................................................................It's too early in the day for this kind of shit!

No it's not.

Prove it.

[points at clock].

ah, but I guarantee my clock says it's much later than your clock... therefore time in this case is subjective

Subjective the subject is!

[notyou2]

this isn't semantics, it's sophistry... he specifically went out of his way to prove he was mistaken... I challenge you to do the same

Let me get this right....He went out of his way to prove that he was wrong, in order to show that funky was wrong about him never admitting to be wrong ...................................................................It's too early in the day for this kind of shit!

No it's not.

Prove it.

[points at clock].

OK, you win this one Jonesey, but I'll be back.