fadedpsychosis wrote:Funkyterrance wrote: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'.
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
lastlyFunkyterrance wrote:Woodruff wrote:Funkyterrance wrote: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):
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.