08-18-2020, 10:44 PM
(08-18-2020, 01:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Routinely announcing you are going to ignore my supposed condescension is not ignoring my supposed condescension.
It is ignoring it. It doesn't mean I'm going to pretend you're not doing it.
Quote:And wholly moot anyway, from someone about to teach me "how the military works."
"Newsmax" references a source used in post #26.
That wasn't my question.
Quote:The Joint Chiefs are supposed to "prove" something to me? Or I was inviting them to publicly criticize Trump? No idea why you are assuming/addressing any of this. That's why we need to source and quote statements and points we are addressing, to help avoid introducing unstated/unacknowledged premises.
Wow, now we're talking in circles, which is boring.
Quote:Well I "demand" that people focus on issues and arguments, and "dictate" that they not center criticism on other posters' persons. That's why, in post # 14, I asked you not to "patter around my posts with little quips and unsupported accusations/objections." I have no authority or power to enforce such requests, but may "kvetch" or ignore when people deviate. I certainly haven't demanded that people interpret the proffered Letter as I do, nor the issue of Trump's threats regarding the coming election. My disagreeing with others' arguments is "demanding we all intrepret as I dictate" only for people who don't understand how civil debates work.
I have civil debates with people here every day. Apparently I do know how they work.
Quote:The way to consider whether my "opinion" is grounded in "firm knowledge or logic" is first to identify whatever conclusions I may be offering, then to consider what evidence is offered in support of them and whether it actually supports them. As I have been telling you for years. Asserting that I don't "have my finger on the JCs" pulse" doesn't really reach that bar.
You offered an opinion piece by two guys, hence my initial challenge in this thread. A very relevant point.
Quote:People don't set themselves up as authorities on a message board by simply starting a thread and inviting people to discuss it. In all my years on the Bengals Message Board I have never announced I was an expert on something, and asserted others had "zero knowledge. ZERO." There are many people on this board who do have expert/insider knowledge of things ranging from the military to the COVID virus to computers to law to insurance to US history to public schools to government. But this is usually DEMONSTRATED in their posts, not merely asserted. "Expertise" is no requisite for participation, no argument in itself.
So, what posts have you made that demonstrated an expertise about the military?
Quote:I don't think you read the "Letter" above for two reasons. 1) you never actually refer to its argument/points to explain and critique them; only launched a red herring/straw man about the authors' "expertise," then mine. And 2) you have yourself explained why you don't have to read the "Letter"--for the same reason you don't engage with Alex Jones or an Antivaxer (badly chosen examples to support non-engagement with opposing views). Thus avoiding the tedious work of knowing what you are talking about.
I did read the letter, I didn't address the points made due to the reasons I have already stated. Rather clearly I might add.
Quote:So here, as in so many previous threads, it's just you complaining when I challenge your god-given right to deploy unsupported assertions about other posters' integrity--instead of addressing actual arguments and issues put up for discussion. That's the "dictatorship" you are complaining about. You want that freedom to reference some unspecified "posting history" or "solipsism," or toss off non-sequiturs about my comfort with abuse of power, without question or accountability. The freedom to substitute quips for arguments, without someone constantly calling attention to the difference.
Ugh, this entire response is just about me and you, which, again, is boring.
Quote:As I have noted before, it is entirely possible that you don't know what an argument is, other than arguments from authority.
And yet I seem to have civil, back and forth debates with numerous posters on this board. Kind of shoots that theory in the foot, eh?
Quote:That's why you are always diverting to these credibility issues. It's personal authority which you do or do not see, not that structure of identifiable premises/evidence linked via inference to a conclusion to which I directed you in posts # 14-15. That would explain your claim the "Letter" is supposed to rest on expertise and that I have "set myself up as an authority." For you that's where the "argument" is, not in the actual argument. Or you could very well know where the actual argument is, but want to stay away from it. Either way, the avoidance continues.
You are avoiding the points made, on this we agree. But this has degenerated into a personal back and forth, so let's kindly end it in the spirit of the new forum.
