|
HUH? Good ideas are good behavior. Not having good ideas is bad behavior. Get rid of the people with bad ideas!
Sharing good ideas is good behavior.
Sharing bad ideas is good behavior, even if they are bad ideas.
Questioning a person's intelligence and then insulting them because they disagree with you is not good behavior.
So, if I leave the board because someone's stupid ideas offends me so much, will they get banned? I doubt it. And thus, this doesn't seem like justifying logic to me.
No...
Not following these rules:
Users who participate in our message boards agree to not: post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party; use profanity; make any bigoted, hateful or racially offensive statements; defame, abuse, stalk, harass or threaten others; advocate illegal activity or discuss illegal activities with the intent to commit them.
...will get you banned.
Wow, am I actually reading this? "If you can't do that without discrediting someone else." Are you kidding me? This is actually saying that it's BAD BEHAVIOR to EXPOSE A FLAW.
No, it's bad behaviour to hurl abuse at someone.
Whether that abuse is mixed with intelligent ideas or mindless grunts is irrelevant. Frank got along just fine for a while and contributed a variety of useful ideas (along with some hare-brained ones); it's just when he resorted to personal attacks that he got a "time out".
|
|
Wow, am I actually reading this? "If you can't do that without discrediting someone else." Are you kidding me? This is actually saying that it's BAD BEHAVIOR to EXPOSE A FLAW IN SOMEONE'S REASONING OR ARGUMENT. That's right, you can't prove someone wrong. Your idea can't demonstrate how another idea is bad.
I mean, if we take that logic to its conclusion, I can count a large number of other posters who should immediately get a suspension.
He never said anything about refuting a statement someone makes. All he's saying is that if you can't make a point without ad hominem attacks you should not be posting.
Saying you diagree with me because of facts X,Y,&Z is ok.
Saying I'm a alcoholic, child beating, idiot and thus my ideas are worthless is not.
|
|
That just sounds so horribly twisted and morally wrong to me.
So, apparently, I can go around spreading nazi ideals, and that's good behavior, because it's spreading a bad idea. But I can't so much as question someone's great intelligence when they prove to be incredibly and destructively stupid. We have to treat everyone like they're the smartest person in the world.
If society worked like that, society wouldn't EXIST any more.
Godwin's law...
As to the ability to share bad ideas, welcome to the concept behing the 1st Amendment (which does not apply to private messageboards), that ideas can and should be expressed even when they are regarded as unpopular.
Turn the situation around. If 90% of Paizo's board thought your ideas were "stupid" and "illogical" would you want them repressed.
Additionally, I'll repeat, if you can't address a person's argument in a logical manner without resulting to name calling or personal attacks, then you really should not be debating the topic.
You strike me as a very logical person who values honesty. Here's a truth. Mudslinging does not counter the logic behind a person's position. It only makes you both a little dirtier.
Additionally, I'll repeat, if you can't address a person's argument in a logical manner without resulting to name calling or personal attacks, then you really should not be debating the topic.I've had my arguments with Frank, and I generally saw more logical reasoning out of his counterarguments than I did with most other posters.
Reread that sentence. The problem wasn't that he was illogical; it's that he was logical but also resorted to name-calling and personal attacks.
|
|
I've had my arguments with Frank, and I generally saw more logical reasoning out of his counterarguments than I did with most other posters.
Be that as it may, when you reduce yourself to alleging that your debat opponent is a "poor scientist" and thus "a failure of a human" you do not win any logical arguments.
Here's where I have a bone to pick. If someone is an alcoholic, I'm going to call them an alcoholic. If someone beats their children, I'm not going to pretend that I'd entrust my child to their care. If someone's an idiot, I'm not going to tell them they have an IQ of 150.
Great. You're just not allowed to call someone an idiot on these messageboards. Question the validity of their ideas as much as you like, just don't resort to personal attacks.
|
|
Here's where I have a bone to pick. If someone is an alcoholic, I'm going to call them an alcoholic. If someone beats their children, I'm not going to pretend that I'd entrust my child to their care. If someone's an idiot, I'm not going to entrust them with a task suitable for Albert Einstein.
The problem is the correlation between "you're an alcoholic, child beating idiot and thus your ideas are worthless." That's a fallacious argument. I have no problem with the names, just the correlation.
It would be relevent if: 1) I was an alcoholic, 2) I actually beat children, 3) I was an idiot. In my case, I rarely drink, would rather die than hurt a child, and am sitting for the Bar exam after getting Cum Laude for Lawschool. I may be evil, but not for the first two reasons and am definitely not stupid.
My point was that by calling me things you think may apply because of your perception of the (il)logic behind my statements, you do not address the logic of my statement itself. You just avoid the task of debating with someone who disagrees with you and return to childish forms of debate.
Mudsling does not equal logical behavior.
Logical debate does.
|
|
Actually, I would be being hypocritical if I were to say that I didn't think poor scientists (in the sense of not being able to use logical reasoning, etc) were failures of human beings. I've said so on many occasions, though rarely on public forums. I don't exactly see where that opinion entails any logical faults. In fact, you seem to be saying that it's just a "bad idea" and thus wrong. :(
Its fine that you feel that way. But if you rely on calling me a failure as a human being merely because I disagree with your anaylsis, then you have not really acted like a logical being yourself and are thus also a failure.
Continue to address my points in a logical manner, great, we're have a debate and all is well.
If we start questioning each other's evoluntionary status, then there's a problem and the underlying debate was meaningless.
|
|
That's... just what I said. Again, it is the CORRELATION that makes it a fallacious ad hominem argument. Saying that your idea is wrong because of "alleged unrelated character flaw XYZ."
You seem to be agreeing with me here :-\
No, I don't believe that a failure to apply what one person decides is a "logical argument" makes another person's ideas worthless and the person a failure as a human being.
You saying I am a horrible scientist, and thus illogical under your definition of the term, does not mean that my argument is without merit or has been refuted. It just means you think I'm illogical. If that means I'm less than human to you, that's fine, but relying on that to "prove" the superiority of your argument is not a logical place to rest your argument.
|
|
I said as much. A few times now. I'm not sure why you think this position is in disagreement with mine.
I apologize if I misread your statements, but the "poor scientist, thus sub-human, thus argument dismissed" tactic was used by Frank on a couple of occasions instead of directly dealing with the arguments of the person he was debating.
When you then stated you feel the same way about steps 1 and 2, I wanted to adress their relevency on step 3. When you stated you found a lot of Frank's counter arguments to be logical, I wanted to make sure you weren't referring to the above which I (and you) consider illogical.
Please accept my apologies for being overzelous in insisting on logical, civilized debate. My only explanation is that Bar exam preperation has me incredibly stressed, which is no excuse. I would like to start over, if possible, as I'm afraid I came across as a jerk.
Hi, I'm Forgottenprince, and from what I've seen, you are a very logical person. The PRPG boards will undoubtedly benefit from your participation. Hopefully, we can all make this an even better game than it currently is.
Nice to meet you.
FP
|
Please accept my apologies for being overzelous in insisting on logical, civilized debate. My only explanation is that Bar exam preperation has me incredibly stressed, which is no excuse. I would like to start over, if possible, as I'm afraid I came across as a jerk.
Not at all; as always, you are the embodiment of patience.
During the above exchange, you were not behaving like a jerk.
Senior Software Developer
|
Ugh. I hate it when threads get like this. The rules are simple. Don't be a jerk. We don't do much moderation outside the 4th edition forum and would prefer to keep it that way.
I think I'll close this one. Feel free to create a new thread to talk about Pathfinder RPG here, or whatever off-topic nonsense you like in the off-topic forum.