News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq
- Thread starter goofyfish
- Start date
- Status
We do?
Ah. We hate ourselves.
Got it.
Must..turn..gun...on...self. It's...commanded.
Screw that. We don't tote. We wield.
Punk.
You presume beyond your station.
You ask for guidance, then presume to lecture.
You're confliction points directly to your personal inadequacy.
Not my problem.
Nothing is your problem, is it? So, at least there's someone on this god-forsaken planet who's well-adjusted, and with absolutely no problems with anything?Mr G said:
What can you tell everyone about how you managed to figure out you have no problems, but clearly a lot of other people do? What's a perfectly adjusted human being supposed to do about that?
No. Your country would lose at the starting line.
For how long, if it should happen?
No.
I'm American.
I'm a non-affiliated Independent. I guess a reasoned appreciation of American political strata is not your strong suit.You big Republican, you!
No reason it should be.
It's not as though you think you know more about my politics than I do.
*cough*
I speak for my gun-wielding self, and others of my inclination.
It is you who seems more inclined to the redneck paradigm.
A good emitter is a good absorber-thingy, no doubt.
You own a major impedance mismatch.
Charge you for my product/service.
What? You think your natural inadequacies entitle you to a discount?
Mr. G:
Your memory may be letting you down in your old age. You've doubled up and responded to the same post twice.
You responded first in post #795, then again in post #806.
Once you get yourself sorted, you can pick up the thread of our conversation by reading post #799.
Good luck!
Your memory may be letting you down in your old age. You've doubled up and responded to the same post twice.
You responded first in post #795, then again in post #806.
Once you get yourself sorted, you can pick up the thread of our conversation by reading post #799.
Good luck!
I am confliction points?
Anyway, rhetorical.
By the way, your illiteracy points to your personal inadequacy.
Were the conversation compelling enough for my complete concentration...
Refusing to look for what is within reach
The only thing that I wonder about with people like our neighbor G is what they're seeking. I mean, quite obviously, it's an inner gratification to which other people are mere accessories. We can only infer that he disagrees with something but we don't know what exactly because he won't actually tell us. And we can only infer something of his beliefs according to the theme of his rabid incoherence by presuming an anti-identification.
In the end, it's actually a form of wailing for help. He's sad, he's lonely, and he's too fucking full of himself to actually admit it. This pathetic behavior is, in fact, the best he can manage. It's one of the problems of self-derived "wisdom" that so many of these sages preclude their own recovery by categorizing it among the things they fundamentally despise. In other words, despite his hatred of communal goodness and solidarity, that positive unity is exactly what he needs. However, because of that hatred, it is the last thing he will seek. And, since certain people hold ideologies that he would include in the range of his hatred, it is easy enough for him to blame those other people for his own misery.
This is the sadness of the super man: waking up one day to realize that you're merely human, have rendered yourself inadequate, and must embrace everything you've built your identity around hating before you can, at last, feel complete.
The grave, in the end, is the preferable option for many. We should not be surprised, then, if our neighbor G spends the rest of his life angrily lashing out at other people in a desperate attempt to remedy his own sadness.
This discussion is about a war, not an impotent old man with nothing to offer the world save bitterness and denigration. Let us leave him to his shadowed valley of death. He knows where the sun is shining, and he knows that if we see him struggling to climb the hill, we will happily offer our hands at least.
He knows, and it's why he hates people the way he does. Let us leave him to it.
The only thing that I wonder about with people like our neighbor G is what they're seeking. I mean, quite obviously, it's an inner gratification to which other people are mere accessories. We can only infer that he disagrees with something but we don't know what exactly because he won't actually tell us. And we can only infer something of his beliefs according to the theme of his rabid incoherence by presuming an anti-identification.
In the end, it's actually a form of wailing for help. He's sad, he's lonely, and he's too fucking full of himself to actually admit it. This pathetic behavior is, in fact, the best he can manage. It's one of the problems of self-derived "wisdom" that so many of these sages preclude their own recovery by categorizing it among the things they fundamentally despise. In other words, despite his hatred of communal goodness and solidarity, that positive unity is exactly what he needs. However, because of that hatred, it is the last thing he will seek. And, since certain people hold ideologies that he would include in the range of his hatred, it is easy enough for him to blame those other people for his own misery.
This is the sadness of the super man: waking up one day to realize that you're merely human, have rendered yourself inadequate, and must embrace everything you've built your identity around hating before you can, at last, feel complete.
The grave, in the end, is the preferable option for many. We should not be surprised, then, if our neighbor G spends the rest of his life angrily lashing out at other people in a desperate attempt to remedy his own sadness.
This discussion is about a war, not an impotent old man with nothing to offer the world save bitterness and denigration. Let us leave him to his shadowed valley of death. He knows where the sun is shining, and he knows that if we see him struggling to climb the hill, we will happily offer our hands at least.
He knows, and it's why he hates people the way he does. Let us leave him to it.
What's even the more interesting observation is my superiors have a thinner skin than me.
Not quite ad hom
It would be wrong to call it "intellectual" dishonesty. There's just not any intellect about it.
Which raises another point: It is only by the loosest of definitions that we might call my post ad hominem. Which definition would you like? The classic definition° fallen into disuse? Not even close. The Wikipedia version?
How about the longtime standard at Sciforums, the Nizkor version?
How about a dictionary definition?
None of these definitions suffices. Rather, what suffices is the undisciplined assertion that anything one might perceive as insulting constitutes an ad hominem argument.
Now, perhaps my analysis of G is wrong. And perhaps he might find it insulting. He can certainly respond to it and demonstrate its error. And he can certainly continue to behave according to its speculation. But even by the snot-nosed, juvenile, coverall definition of ad hominem, we're still not there.
As to the more specific definitions, one of the elements this discussion is missing before it treads into the realm of ad hominem is an argument to respond to:
I don't think I'm making a particularly extreme assertion in saying that there are many of us who would much rather G actually make an argument instead of just stroke himself in a vain effort to convince us of his virility. We would much rather argue about an argument than overinflated egotism intended only to serve his perverse self-gratification.
And besides, it seems rather quite obvious that G is dishonest. There's no need to go on beating that dead horse.
But people are giving him disproportionate attention. Like I said earlier, this discussion is about a war, not some impotent old man. I, like many around here, am aware that G is a denigration of this community as a whole. And people need to realize a couple of things. First, it doesn't appear he's going anywhere; enough of my fellows consider his posts either vital and valuable to the community or else subject to protection for the sake of political correctness that little beyond the deletion of his most blatant and egregious offenses will ever happen. Secondly, he doesn't seem to care. His priorities are not refined in such a manner that he gives a rat's ass what kind of attention he gets. He's like a lonely, bitter child acting up because even negative attention is better than being ignored or forgotten.
So my suggestion to my neighbors is to leave him to it.
Between posts 766 and 813, there have been all of three posts that were on-topic. The remainder—forty-four posts—have been sidebar chatter, most of which has centered around Mr. G. Now, quite obviously, I'm all for sidebar chatter; it keeps a topic from achieving a certain unpalatable sterility. But at this level it's an overdose, and all we're doing is giving G exactly what he wants.
And so I'm asking my neighbors to recognize that they are not the only individuals who hold G in such low esteem. It's time to look around, catch the nods and winks, and recognize that there are no substantial arguments to knock a person with if they choose to simply walk the hell away and leave G to stew in his own fecal gravy.
____________________
Notes:
° classic definition — see Usage Note.
Works Cited:
"Usage Note: ad hominem". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth edition. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html
"Ad hominem". Wikipedia. Updated May 25, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"Fallacy: Ad hominem". Nizkor.org. Viewed May 30, 2008. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
"ad hominem". Dictionary.com. Viewed may 30, 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad hominem
Roman said:
It would be wrong to call it "intellectual" dishonesty. There's just not any intellect about it.
Which raises another point: It is only by the loosest of definitions that we might call my post ad hominem. Which definition would you like? The classic definition° fallen into disuse? Not even close. The Wikipedia version?
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
How about the longtime standard at Sciforums, the Nizkor version?
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
How about a dictionary definition?
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.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
None of these definitions suffices. Rather, what suffices is the undisciplined assertion that anything one might perceive as insulting constitutes an ad hominem argument.
Now, perhaps my analysis of G is wrong. And perhaps he might find it insulting. He can certainly respond to it and demonstrate its error. And he can certainly continue to behave according to its speculation. But even by the snot-nosed, juvenile, coverall definition of ad hominem, we're still not there.
As to the more specific definitions, one of the elements this discussion is missing before it treads into the realm of ad hominem is an argument to respond to:
• ... replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
• ... a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
• ... attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
• ... a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
• ... attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
I don't think I'm making a particularly extreme assertion in saying that there are many of us who would much rather G actually make an argument instead of just stroke himself in a vain effort to convince us of his virility. We would much rather argue about an argument than overinflated egotism intended only to serve his perverse self-gratification.
And besides, it seems rather quite obvious that G is dishonest. There's no need to go on beating that dead horse.
But people are giving him disproportionate attention. Like I said earlier, this discussion is about a war, not some impotent old man. I, like many around here, am aware that G is a denigration of this community as a whole. And people need to realize a couple of things. First, it doesn't appear he's going anywhere; enough of my fellows consider his posts either vital and valuable to the community or else subject to protection for the sake of political correctness that little beyond the deletion of his most blatant and egregious offenses will ever happen. Secondly, he doesn't seem to care. His priorities are not refined in such a manner that he gives a rat's ass what kind of attention he gets. He's like a lonely, bitter child acting up because even negative attention is better than being ignored or forgotten.
So my suggestion to my neighbors is to leave him to it.
Between posts 766 and 813, there have been all of three posts that were on-topic. The remainder—forty-four posts—have been sidebar chatter, most of which has centered around Mr. G. Now, quite obviously, I'm all for sidebar chatter; it keeps a topic from achieving a certain unpalatable sterility. But at this level it's an overdose, and all we're doing is giving G exactly what he wants.
And so I'm asking my neighbors to recognize that they are not the only individuals who hold G in such low esteem. It's time to look around, catch the nods and winks, and recognize that there are no substantial arguments to knock a person with if they choose to simply walk the hell away and leave G to stew in his own fecal gravy.
____________________
Notes:
° classic definition — see Usage Note.
Works Cited:
"Usage Note: ad hominem". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth edition. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html
"Ad hominem". Wikipedia. Updated May 25, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"Fallacy: Ad hominem". Nizkor.org. Viewed May 30, 2008. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
"ad hominem". Dictionary.com. Viewed may 30, 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad hominem
Mr. G: "Thanks for your respect."
You earn it, with high proportionality.
You earn it, with high proportionality.
G'nightijhi. :sleep:
- Status