Repeating the same baseless claim over and over is
So flamebaiting is the obvious solution?
No it is simply adapting to your new argument structure. I can do it equally as well. You would notice in our first callout that there was a lot more even and take and the reason for that is based on the fact that your method of argument was not as poor as this one. But this one of weak subjective and unsubstantial claims repeated over and over with the definition of the claim offered as evidence of what is being claimed is something anyone can do. You can argue whether the fact that we can do something is any argument as to whether we should But I may call that flamebaiting or perhaps disingenuous or perhaps obfuscation. Then show you the definition and repeat the claim over and over.
Al, I honestly don't know what more to say on the subject. If you'd been displaying the kind of behaviour I highlighted outside the very narrow confines of that subject, there might have been more to add. Examples, nuances, what have you. But you're not a dishonest person as a rule, intellectually or otherwise, and so all I could do was to point out what I did, including that definition and all that came with it, and that's really it.
I think maybe you made it to be about more than it actually was, thinking I was calling you a liar or dishonest, and that wasn't the case. You are entitled to calling my argumentation weak, of course, just as I am entitled to disagree with that notion, but I don't think you can force me to add more if I think there isn't more to add. The way this sort of thing should have been resolved then was by asking what the peanut gallery thought.
The tiptoeing was even more problematic as the subject of a callout, since it is an observation based on how I've seen you behave in the past. The Al I know would not hesitate to call people out if their behaviour would warrant it--your calling me out is actually a good example--yet you were strangely silent even though DFG was posting all kinds of things all over the place. How do I prove the lack of something?
In a way, the sheer volume of this argument (including the callout and all those other threads, and now this exchange) shows your willingness to post about whatever you disagree with. So why didn't any of the things DFG said cause a reaction of any kind?
It's entirely possible that you didn't read it all, that you agreed with what she said, or didn't think it was worth challenging, but I think these are all a bit unlike you. It's one thing if you miss it--I don't read everything here and I bet you don't either--but her comments were frequently made in threads I know you followed because you posted in them.
Plus, the fact that both of my observations tie into that same basic topic, namely the whole Zegh thing.
I think I've said all of these things before, so my apologies for repeating them.
In this very thread was a lot of talk about such things as the East Timorese Massacre by Muslims. I could have replied. I was following. I could have stated that the massacre was seen as nearly on our own doorstep and Australians rallied to stop it and install military presence to prevent it continuing.
I could have also explained that the Bali bombings that killed so many Aussie terrorists was a calculated attack NOT on their people but specifically to hit back at Australians and the target and time was coordinated to be killing and maiming Australian tourists as a direct "fuck you" to us for intervening in East Timor. It hurt us and was very strongly felt in Australia.
Could have said that, but didn't. Some of the conversation was silly and lame one-upmanship and I could not be bothered arguing or injecting myself. You and Benji and anyone else getting involved can sort yourselves out.
It was often the same with Lit. Lit would tell us he wanted to screw some nice young 16 year old in the arse and then get a headjob from her, what are you gonna do? For what reason too? I told him a couple of times he was an idiot and a couple of times made fun of him and his perversions. Fuck, the guy is my age. Those kids could literally be his daughter. So did I argue every point? Towards the end of his tenure here I had not argued with him in years and I disagreed with most of what he said.
I do pick and choose my moments but not out of favour but more out of how invested I am in something. If I am passionate in what has been said or it really rubs me up the wrong way I will go anyone online or IRL. You can choose to believe that or not.
I do not tiptoe around DFG. As I said, the irony was the only person in this whole thing that I was sort of "tiptoeing" around was YOU. The reason being is that I was incredulous and absolutely believed that I was missing something or not getting the full picture. I mean you making weak unsubstantiated claim after weak unsubstantiated claim and then doing a horrible job at backing it? THAT was not the Odeon I had seen in the past nor that I had a callout with. So I tiptoed in a sense and was far more reserved than I would have been with most.
In the same way that I read and ignored your tussle with Benji and indeed DFG's tussle with Some Bloke. I ignored a lot of posts from DFG that I disagreed with or found dull or confusing. The ones I agree with I commented on. THAT is not tiptoeing and never was and repeating the claim does not make it so. Did not then and does not now.
If you look at the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty you need to break it down into its parts and see how the relate to the persons action and intent. If the person accused mounts a case and gives account and is transparent and honest, it looks more and more like the intellectual dishonest claim is incorrect. I have done this. I have addressed every aspect of this. I have not been weaselly about this or obtuse. I have put everything about my actions and intent in context. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about what I have done.
You could well have made a strong case for me being rude, boring, annoying, or literally a dozen of other things which would have all been pretty difficult for me to argue no matter how subjective. THIS was the strength of our first callout. We both had GOOD reason to support our claims and whether we agreed or did not have a meeting of the minds, it was all reasonable and rational.
This wasn't. The behaviour of "tiptoeing" was not "tiptoeing" and was no aberration to what I have being doing on this site for years. The intellectual dishonesty was not intellectual dishonesty, no matter how many definitions are posted or how it is sliced. It was a weak claim (though certainly not weaker than the tiptoeing claim).
You making weak claims at me is unusual. Unusual too in respect to the fact that they were transparent, unproveable and unsubstantiated or able to be quantified. Also you must have known I would both reject the claims out of hand and ask you to back them and give account for yourself. Therefore you cannot have imagined posting a definition or repeating the claims a sensible option. Neither brings you any closer to making the case. Maybe you were gambling on the thought that making weak claims and then getting the other members to "vote" on it, would influence me. I know you have bought up the Peanut Gallery a lot. You know I would not given the peanut gallery the slightest notice. This is you and I. I would like to think that this was not the case.
So no the tiptoeing was not, nor do I believe looked like, tiptoeing. It looked certainly like I was not responding to some posts and the default response is NOT that I was tiptoeing. So there was no reason to go there and no connection there. Not rational and not a strong claim.
Intellectual Dishonesty is a not only a set of actions but also a mindset or set of behaviours. What I mean by that is to call someone Intellectual Dishonest you are evoking a set of behaviours that someone is adopting. In the same way that someone cannot be casually creepy. They can be creepy or you could mistake their intents as creepy or they could be completely not creepy. If you are calling someone or their behaviour intellectually dishonest you are absolutely saying that they intentionally committing fallacies, being biased, not relying on facts to make their assessment on thongs and showing an inability to self-examine or be transparent. Indeed to rationally back themselves. Doesn't sound like me. It isn't either. It is why I have been able to refute every silly claim. Were they GOOD claims, I would not be able to back myself. I would fumble around directionless.
In fact I would ask does that not say something that whatever you intent or thoughts on saying what you said, what has changed for having said it? Having said what you said, what was achieved and how? Was it worth saying and if so why? What were you expecting to get from saying it and why?
Hey I am happy going back and emulating your new argument trend but I am interested in trying to appreciate where you are actually coming from first.
was it something I said?