In Reply to: RE: Seriously? posted by Analog Scott on August 24, 2012 at 09:02:03:
"You had expressed your outrage way before the word "stupid" came into it. I'm just not one to walk on egg shells in these kinds of discussions because someone chooses to become indignant about things."
Frankly, that's a very self-serving way of looking at it. Civil debate is easy enough to master, and, more importantly, argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy that detracts from meaningful argument and is best left to the cesspools of politics and divorce court. I'd think the reason for that would be self-apparent: whether someone is a liar or a fool or an axe murderer has no bearing whatsoever on whether their argument is correct.
It is perfectly fair and right to point out that a performance presented as evidence is of a different version, and to question its validity. It serves no purpose whatsoever to start making speculative accusations about the person who posted it.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 09:39:30 08/24/12 (10)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 10:00:30 08/24/12 (9)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 09:04:37 08/25/12 (8)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 11:59:09 08/25/12 (7)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 18:01:35 08/26/12 (6)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 18:52:57 08/26/12 (5)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 07:14:22 09/02/12 (4)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 09:31:46 09/02/12 (3)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 11:21:59 09/02/12 (2)
- RE: Seriously? - Analog Scott 13:25:51 09/02/12 (1)
- RE: Seriously? - josh358 14:57:48 09/02/12 (0)