Trump's new Sec. of Labor has some baggage...

[Dill]

(11-29-2018, 08:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you'll find your responsible for at least as many closed threads as I.  I've already asked that you stop making this thread about you and me, yet you continue. 

I'm not excusing anything.  Also, your second claim in this quote is laughable untrue. 

Have respect for, not admire.  Unlike those of you who whine about rep, which is why neg rep went away, I could care less about it. 

Ahh, I see.  So when, after years on this and the old board I have brought such insight from my profession to this board I was simply "claiming/begging"?  I suppose you didn't see those posts much like you don't see the posts labeling anyone who disagrees with the poster as a "Trump supporter".  Selective blindness must be very convenient for you when having these types of discussion.

Quite sincerely, if you can't see the basic, inherent, logic in my statements on this matter then you're not worth any time trying to convince you further. 

I'll let you know when that occurs on this board.  So far I've caught Fred making mistakes about his profession, the same cannot be said about me.

Indeed, maybe you'll now return to allowing the thread to be about the actual topic instead of a hamfisted attempt to smear me.

I think I'll find no thread in this forum has ever been shut down because I violated the statute against personal attack.  Both sides don't do it.

You charged into this thread denigrating everyone's intelligence.  When you came to "edify" us all (and I can safely say "us" here--Me, Mike, Dino et al.), YOU made it about you and me and who ever else you are denigrating, and not the thread topic.   You claimed and continue to claim, that others' mental deficiencies explain their refusal to accept your unsupported claims or "impressions" as I would call them. But when personal attack suddenly becomes a liability, you want to flip the script.  By addressing the unsoundness of your arguments--as you invited me to do--I am now somehow "belittling" them and "smearing" you. 
 
It doesn't stop there. You make of point of claiming authority and then complaining that doesn't get respect on this thread. When I suggest respect might increase if you stopped the unnecessary personal insults, you momentarily decide you "couldn't care less about rep." Sure. Then, as the guy who doesn't care about rep, you remind me (us?) how great you were on the old board, etc. (Along the way impulsively throwing out an unsupported claim about some "convenient" selective blindness.)  

You claim your impressions have some "basic, inherent logic" which you cannot explain but people just ought to "see" and accept, and it's their fault if they don't; yet you deny this demand for uncritical acceptance is any kind of special pleading or begging--"begging" as in "begging the question," a type of logical fallacy, often deployed, as in your posts, with another fallacy, the "argument from authority."  You have time to insult, but not to explain. (Perhaps you weren't begging claims rather than proving them on the old board, thus providing all that insight which I missed. But that is hardly a defense against begging claims here. And when that is "obvious" to me, but not you, I do I take the time to explain.)

There is no "logic" which does not operate upon premises and conclusions, and which does not involve deductive or inductive inference; and no real argument whose parts cannot be separated out and examined for structure, validity, soundness, hidden assumptions. Premises can be self-evident, but by definition arguments cannot be.  That's why it is illogical to present an argument as self evident and then unethical to defend that claimed self-evidence via character attack. Demonstrating such failures in an argument is not "smearing" their author; claiming it is erases the distinction between rational critique of an object, an argument, and personal attack on a subject--ad hominem.

You argue for the self evidence of fallacious arguments, and when their components are broken down and questioned, you do not address the arguments but attack the personal qualities of the questioner. Then when the ad hominem is pointed out, you want to flip the script, appealing to the standards you have just violated. You made it about "me and you," now, suddenly, it shouldn't be. Bad Dill needs to stop doing that.

The pattern described above is a continual re-positioning, a flipping the script, a violating of standards (logical and ethical) and then accusing others of doing what you were just flagged for.   I could do a search of one word, say "hyperbole" or "hypocrite," and demonstrate how this re-positioning/flipping works in your posts across a number of threads.  It is a form of projection (your superpower, remember?) but deployed ad hoc; one moment it feels good to go low; another moment if feels good to go high and accuse someone else of going low.  

So if you are serious about contributing something to this thread which is not about "me and you," then I suggest you get back to those elements of your argument which I have singled out as deficient.  Either explain why your argument from authority in this case does not commit the fallacy of appeal to authority, or support your conclusions in a more tentative mode which respects other posters, and with something that can count as evidence--i.e. not something in the form of "I just know," and without mentioning any other poster's mental deficiencies.   

This is more work than a serious of quips, but taking this high road, now and in the future, would raise the level of your arguments. If you are curious as to what arguments from authority, following classical logic, can or cannot "logically" support, I can provide that information. Then you can yourself test how they might apply to your case.