I've been here for about 4 years and that's the way it's always been. Always.
I wanted to know where you were getting that opinion from and I linked for you where I was getting mine from.
It is possible for people to misinterpret your posts, you know. It could be completely my fault and you still don't have to go off.
Last edited by Jerry; 07-31-09 at 02:18 PM.
If any of you feel the need to be insulting and call someone names, by all means use me. I enjoy that activity. Some of the insults I have received have been quite original and humorous.
Last edited by a777pilot; 07-31-09 at 02:20 PM.
I came into this world fighting, screaming and covered in someone else's blood. I have no problem going out the same way.
I've been here for a year and I've never once seen anyone ask for a source in order to gain a better understanding of a post. Only to determine the validity of their statements.I've been here for about 4 years and that's the way it's always been. Always.
You never understood my opinion. Your link had nothing to do with my opinion. It was not a rebuttal of my opinion. It was essentially a non-sequitor.I wanted to know where you were getting that opinion from and I linked for you where I was getting mine from.
The reason you fell into this error was because instead of seeking CLARIFICATION on my point, you just made an ASSUMPTION about my point, and then sought to receive evidence to support the assumed position -which was never mine to begin with- and offered your rebuttal opinion based on that assumption. Hence the strawman accusation. You gave your opinion based on an innacurate interpretation of mine.
Then, when you offered your "source" for your opinion, even though I asked for a source from where anyone made the "more drugs = less crime" argument you portrayed as my point, I actually offered clarification of what I meant, by showing that what you were talking about bore no relationship to what I was talking about whatsoever.
And all you had to say was "What do you mean" instead of posing a loaded question based on a strawman, which may or may not have been accidental.All you had to say was "that's not what I meant".
But in the future, in order to prevent "accidental" fallacies and the reactions they will always inspire, you should first seek legitimate clarification on a point BEFORE trying to ask direct questions about your perceptions of that point based on your incorrect assumptions.
I never went "off". I simply presented a full explanation of precisely WHY your comments had no logical relationship to mine.It is possible for people to misinterpret your posts, you know. It could be completely my fault and you still don't have to go off.
My first response was "Who said anything about "more drugs = less crime"" (this qualifies as seeking clarification because it actually asks a question instead of posing a statement as a question to illustrate confusion).
That was supposed to be an indicator that I was indeed not making that point which you mistakenly thought I was, and I was wondering who did in fact make that point.
You responded in such a way that it seemed clear that you were indeed asking me for something which I had never presented.
My next post explained why the question you asked was both a strawman and a loaded question. You claim that these fallacies were accidental, which is totally possible.
I'm sorry I took it to be intentional. I was under the impression that you do this so often in debates on purpose. It honestly never crossed my mind that this consistent behavior on your part was inadvertent.
For that assumption on my part, I apologize. I will be more understanding of this in the future, as I now understand that you do this because you honestly don't understand the points people make, and it is not willfully distorting other people's points in order to use your existing arguments against these distorted points so that you can trap them into debating you in your comfort zone.
I had always assumed it was the latter situation, now I understand it is the former situation. I will act accordingly when it happens again and just tell you that was not the point I was making in clear and concise words so that misinterpretation cannot occur (my error here was assuming that by asking who made such a point it would be strongly implied that I had never made such a point. clearly that wasn't enough. From now on, I will make sure to respond with a much lesser degree of subtlety)
But again, I never "went off". I simply tried to point out that fallacies were indeed present in your responses to me.
Get a room.