Jump to content
Zaraphayx

Net Neutrality Getting Repealed Owns

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Faust said:

Zara, your arguments will carry more weight if you stop throwing around Ad Hominem attacks.

2018 and people here still think I'm invested in their approval of my "arguments"

If my tone manages to completely sway how you evaluate the truth value of my statements your opinion is irrelevant to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.s. did you realize it's insulting to assume that I'm stupid and socially incompetent and that i need your advise on how to persuade others? 

smug-dog-58b27562e484a.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Faust said:

Zara, your arguments will carry more weight if you stop throwing around Ad Hominem attacks.

Ad Hominen attacks and straw man arguments are a method of argumentation utilized by many people unfortunately.

 

5 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

P.s. stop crying like a moist bitch about being "misrepresented".

It's difficult to discuss anything when the other party is making up an argument out of thin air on your behalf just so that they can refute it while ignoring what you're actually saying.

6 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

This doesn't mean anything; it's like saying that the air conditioning in my car cooled me off faster than the car was driving; they are two variables with no implicit causal relationship.

My point was that you stated the following:

On 1/10/2018 at 2:23 AM, Zaraphayx said:

ITT guy who thinks that human evolution just stopped 5000 years ago and that humans haven't been sexually selecting for traits useful to civilization also thinks that the media "handed Trump the election"

Which was flat out untrue. I never thought or claimed the things that you are stating in the bold part of that sentence.

 

Do I have to spell it out to you?

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"."

 

1. I made a few statements that admittedly could've done with some citations and details to back them up. Fair enough.

2. However you made up some claims/thoughts of mine that I never stated and then acted like as if that was the argument I was presenting. You were arguing against a straw man.

3. I called you out on your false claims then you went on a tangent about causality which again was creating a straw man argument as that was not what I was arguing in that instance.

 

6 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

The overall point you're tasked with substantiating within the context of this thread is that contemporary human power structures are 1.) out of alignment with our biology and 2.) said biology is maladaptive.

I've already gone into further detail than I had originally planned. If you were after references to resources where more information could be found you could've simply have told me that directly rather than engaged in straw man arguments and Ad Hominem attacks.

 

Unfortunately I have not kept as many links about the subject (mostly focused on the economy myself) but these are a few places to get started with many references and citations to additional resources:

http://dieoff.com/page137.htm

http://www.endofmore.com/?p=1464

These mostly relate to how certain human instincts (namely trying to get as many resources as possible and reproduce as much as possible) do not work well in the long run when faced with a large but finite surplus of resources contained in carbon in plants and especially in fossil fuels (our population growth resembles that of yeast in a jar).

https://archive.org/stream/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-TheUnabombersManifesto/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-theUnabombersManifesto_djvu.txt

I know you'll be tempted to simply attack the messenger for this one but rather than doing that please look at their arguments and the concrete examples that they present of industrial civilization.

https://hipcrime.blogspot.com.au/

http://hipcrimevocab.com/

Silly name aside, these sites contain loads of articles backed up by various studies and historical records about the effects of civilization on humans over time. Plenty of references and citations to be found here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Ad Hominen attacks and straw man arguments are a method of argumentation utilized by many people unfortunately.

 

It's difficult to discuss anything when the other party is making up an argument out of thin air on your behalf just so that they can refute it while ignoring what you're actually saying.

My point was that you stated the following:

Which was flat out untrue. I never thought or claimed the things that you are stating in the bold part of that sentence.

 

Do I have to spell it out to you?

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"."

 

1. I made a few statements that admittedly could've done with some citations and details to back them up. Fair enough.

2. However you made up some claims/thoughts of mine that I never stated and then acted like as if that was the argument I was presenting. You were arguing against a straw man.

3. I called you out on your false claims then you went on a tangent about causality which again was creating a straw man argument as that was not what I was arguing in that instance.

 

I've already gone into further detail than I had originally planned. If you were after references to resources where more information could be found you could've simply have told me that directly rather than engaged in straw man arguments and Ad Hominem attacks.

 

Unfortunately I have not kept as many links about the subject (mostly focused on the economy myself) but these are a few places to get started with many references and citations to additional resources:

http://dieoff.com/page137.htm

http://www.endofmore.com/?p=1464

These mostly relate to how certain human instincts (namely trying to get as many resources as possible and reproduce as much as possible) do not work well in the long run when faced with a large but finite surplus of resources contained in carbon in plants and especially in fossil fuels (our population growth resembles that of yeast in a jar).

https://archive.org/stream/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-TheUnabombersManifesto/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-theUnabombersManifesto_djvu.txt

I know you'll be tempted to simply attack the messenger for this one but rather than doing that please look at their arguments and the concrete examples that they present of industrial civilization.

https://hipcrime.blogspot.com.au/

http://hipcrimevocab.com/

Silly name aside, these sites contain loads of articles backed up by various studies and historical records about the effects of civilization on humans over time. Plenty of references and citations to be found here.

I wasn't making an argument against you with that post numbnuts I was mocking you, what doesn't your retarded ass understand about that?

You have yet to present a point salient enough for me to even argue against because you've yet to make an argument defending your criticisms of contemporary democratic systems that's actually coherent, you just called pre-civilization "more equitable" because there wasn't enough shared resources procured by humanity to precipitate wealth inequality after asserting preemptively through some completely unsubstantiated jump in reasoning that the more disparate power structure this created is a fatal flaw of representative government.

Your entire "point" is a fucking mess and none of the dozens of paragraphs you've written since have been anything in support of that original claim; just you desperately trying to prove you know what you're talking about when it comes to human genetic history (P.S. you don't) every time I check into this thread to laugh at you.

Nothing you just linked has any sort of relevance to human genetic development, just energy sustainability.


 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zaraphayx Please re-read the description provided beneath the first two links and look at the last three links. I won't post anymore in this thread as you keep making up nonsense on my behalf and then mock the nonsense you make up.

Since you seem to be content in mocking figments of your imagination (the straw man arguments) there's no point in my continuing make posts here basically equating to "no I did not say/think that" only for you to make up more nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

@Zaraphayx Please re-read the description provided beneath the first two links and look at the last three links. I won't post anymore in this thread as you keep making up nonsense on my behalf and then mock the nonsense you make up.

Since you seem to be content in mocking figments of your imagination (the straw man arguments) there's no point in my continuing make posts here basically equating to "no I did not say/think that" only for you to make up more nonsense.

Stop-Dont-Come-Back-Sarcastic-Willy-Wonk

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/01/2018 at 9:44 AM, Zaraphayx said:

P.s. did you realize it's insulting to assume that I'm stupid and socially incompetent and that i need your advise on how to persuade others? 

Assume? I'm going by pretty solid evidence ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×